Facebook and How We Work These Days

Well, I survived my birthday yesterday — not that I did anything really out of the ordinary. But I did experience something that made me think about the nature of relationships and conversations these days — in the workplace and in social settings.

Throughout the day I received a number of extremely kind — and thoughtful, really — birthday wishes from friends on Facebook. And when I say friends I really mean it — mainly former students — now young professionals — and others who I met during my time teaching public relations at Kent State.

What struck me was not just the kindness or the willingness to take a minute or so to send a message — but how we establish and maintain friendships and other relationships these days, particularly in the workplace.

I don’t believe I have written — or received — a personal letter in years. That’s a shame.

Phone calls? Nah, not many. Almost none related to work. We’ve become an e-mail society where we feel better about knocking out a quick — and sometimes rude and unintelligent — message rather than pick up the phone and actually engage someone in a conversation.

And many — myself included — now work primarily from home, although the actual numbers here are pretty squishy. That means we by necessity rely more on computers and technology. Hard to stop by someone’s office when the office might be miles (states?) away.

Still, I wonder if this lack of direct contact and personal conversations isn’t contributing to a sense of isolation — which perhaps explains some of the attraction of Facebook, Twitter and so on. We/I can join those venues all day or when convenient and establish or maintain some level of contact and relationships — although admittedly not direct ones.

And I’m not alone.  Here’s an interesting article from the online version of the WSJ that argues that the e-mail era is waning, soon to be replaced by Facebook and Twitter messaging and so on.

We’ll see. I’m convinced that we will never return to the workplace that I experienced at Goodrich — wading through stacks of snail mail, writing handwritten notes and typing letters, making and answering phone calls, and getting up every once in awhile and strolling into someone’s office to kill time, spread rumors and so on.

Kind of miss some of that, actually.

Although I’ll admit to enjoying the comments from friends on Facebook yesterday.

OK. Better get to work — and sign on to Facebook and Twitter so I can see what is going on.

 

Birthdays and Retirement: Well, Maybe Not

I marked my 62nd birthday this morning doing what I do most days: Get up around 3 a.m. or so, scan the Internet sites and Twitter, down a pot of coffee, and head out the door for a self-propelled five-mile running tour of the neighborhood. Why change after all these years?

Of course, something did change today. I’m now eligible to collect Social Security. Woot.

I’m not going to do that now — mostly because I’m making too much money working part time. And I know I am fortunate to be able to say that. I’ve retired from two jobs that I enjoyed immensely: a senior-level management position in corporate public relations at BFGoodrich and teaching public relations courses and supervising students at Kent State in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

Many of my fellow Baby Boomers don’t have it nearly this good — and that touches just about every part of our economy and has major implications for jobs and careers for those who are just entering — or attempting to enter — the job market.

For instance, the number of people electing to take Social Security benefits in fiscal year 2009 (ending Sept. 30) hit an all-time high: 2.6 million, a 19 percent jump from the previous year. Why? Here’s from a USA Today article by Richard Wolf:

“There are just not enough jobs for older people,” says Richard Johnson, senior fellow at the non-partisan Urban Institute. “They have no choice but to go on Social Security.”

Well, in days past, most were pretty well settled into a job — or getting ready to retire, if they hadn’t done so already. Whoa, big guys and gals. Not so fast these days.  Here’s from a USA Today article by Christine Dugas, “Financial worries dog older workers; confidence falls“:

Faced with increasing job losses, worries about having enough money for retirement and continued difficulty in paying for basic items such as food, those ages 45 to 64 are one worried group, a survey released Tuesday by AARP shows.

And:

•Job loss is rising. Some 12% of older Americans say they or a family member have lost a job in the past year, up from 8% in the April 2008 survey and 9% in December 2008.

•Even many who still have a job are feeling more financial pain. Among workers, 30% say their hours have been cut or they have had to take a pay cut.

•Nearly half, 49%, say that they are not confident about having enough money in retirement.

And one result of all this: For those who have jobs, they ain’t likely to give them up voluntarily — and this limits the jobs available for younger workers. Here’s from a NYT article:

In other parts of the developed world, people are retiring as planned, because of relatively flush state and corporate pensions that await them. But here in the United States, financial security in old age rests increasingly on private savings, which have taken a beating in the last year. Prospective retirees are clinging to their jobs despite some cherished life plans.

As a result, companies are not only reluctant to create new jobs, but have fewer job openings to fill from attrition. For the 14 million Americans looking for work — a number expected to rise in Friday’s jobs report for August — this lack of turnover has made a tough job market even tougher.

And:

Though their pension systems may be strained, people in many countries with stronger safety nets are still exiting the labor force in lockstep despite the global recession. Last year in the United States, almost a third of people ages 65 to 69 were still in the labor force; in France, just 4 percent of people this age were still working or looking for work.

After all, Europe isn’t just the land of “socialized” medicine. It is also the land of “socialized” retirement plans, and like other automatic stabilizers, pensions help cushion the blow of an economic crisis.

I’m not so sure when you accept the fact that you are a senior citizen. In my case, maybe it was when I caved and proudly displayed my Ohio Golden Buckeye card to get nearly free parking at the Kent Student Center. So it goes.

But I do know that as more and more of us join the senior citizen fraternity and sorority, there are going to be big policy issues involving “socialized” medicine, “socialized” pension plans,  job growth and availability and so on.

Oh, by the way. And this is a cautionary note for younger workers reading this post — those of you who have to contribute a large slice of your earnings to pay for those who are getting a monthly check from Uncle Sam.

Someday I will start to collect Social Security benefits.

And I plan to live forever.

 

 

Health Care and Abortion: Politics as Usual?

I guess we’re experiencing Indian summer here in NE Ohio. That’s kind of a strange descriptor — and one that most likely isn’t politically correct these days. But I’m enjoying the weather — 50 degrees, mild breeze at 5 a.m., following a delightful early November day yesterday.

And as I was on my self-guided running tour of the neighborhood this morning, I kept thinking about the ongoing debate over health care.

That’s kind of sad, really. Sad from the standpoint of that being the top-of-my-little-mind subject for five miles or so. And sad that we can’t seem to resolve big national issues with some degree of civility — and without politics as usual.

I opined yesterday in this space about the need for some straight talk on this important issue — and some common sense. Didn’t see much of either yesterday on the news, in blog postings and during the nightly TV talk show shouting matches.

Yeah, I know. This is complicated — and there are big bucks at stake and big careers and ambitions hanging in the balance. And I’ll admit again that I haven’t read the nearly 2,000 pages in the House bill — and can’t imagine that most anyone has, except the insurance industry and drug firm lobbyists and so on.

During the Hillary Care debacle of 15 years or so ago, I was working at Goodrich and participating as a volunteer on a communications committee opposing health care reform as part of the Business Roundtable. There were many objections at that point, but two stood out: concerns about the cost of extending health care to the uninsured and the fact that the business community really didn’t want to give up control of what was viewed at that time as a tax-free benefit for employees.

The cost issue remains. We’re talking about plans with estimated price tags that range from $800 billion to more than $1 trillion — and the cost savings and increased tax revenues to pay for any or all of this are murky at best, if they exist at all. How much trust do you have in those numbers — or in the claims that the feds can skinny some $400 billion out of Medicare? Nah.

Still, I favor extending some form of affordable health care coverage to everyone who needs it — and if that doesn’t emerge in a final House/Senate bill, what’s the point? Just sayin’.

And I was — dare I say it, hopeful — that a compromise could be crafted somewhere along the way that most likely wouldn’t have been perfect but would have been viewed by most as a major step in the right direction. If you have ever been without medical insurance because you didn’t qualify because of a “pre-existing condition” — or if you have paid out-of-pocket for premiums or expenses for yourself or family members — then you know this isn’t just an intellectual debate among policy wonks Inside the Beltway.

Not so sure now. And here’s why.

We’ve managed to entangle two contentious issues — health care and abortion — into something that is going to require an up or down vote, possibly next year as we head into the mid-term elections.

Prez O says this isn’t about abortion. It’s about health care.

We’ll see.

Looks to me like it is about politics as usual.

And that’s a shame.

 

 

Health Care and Common Sense: Really?

I’ll admit it. I had an enjoyable weekend here in Northeast Ohio. Weather was fantastic: mild and sunny. Had two nearly pain free early morning runs Saturday and Sunday. And I made it Saturday night to the Kent State Folk Festival to see and hear the Del McCoury Band and Sarah Jarosz. If you have the opportunity, go to the folk festival — or get to the Kent Stage for another concert. Quite an experience.

The folk festival tends to draw an audience that turns the performances into an AARP hootenanny. So I thought it was ironic that just as I was leaving the Kent Stage — at a little after 11 Saturday night (yawn) — that I received my first buzz alerts on my BlackBerry via Twitter about the House passing its version of health care.

I’ve had excellent employer-provided health care for the past 40 years. And I’m on the cusp of being eligible for Medicare — the public option plan that seniors like me want to hold on to with a death grip. So what’s my take — and I expect many others like me — on all this?

I react to the health care debate in the manner of a right versus right dilemma — as could be stated by Rushworth Kidder, the common sense ethics guru whose text I used in my media ethics class at Kent State. Simply stated, people in this country should have access to affordable health care. But who is going to pay for it — and what trade offs, if any, are we willing to make to provide at a minimum some level of universal coverage? That’s really what’s on the table now. And it takes the form of two (maybe more) “rights” — and no easy solution.

OK. I haven’t read the House version of the health care bill — nearly 2,000 pages. Have you? Has anyone? And who types all of this? And proofs it? Oops I digress.

Anyway, here are some thoughts:

• To say the least, this is a complicated issue. And here is another example where we really do need an informed press. With all of the debate, commentary, TV Talking Head shouting matches and so on, I really don’t understand the scope of this bill or what promises were made to lobbyists, insurance companies, members of Congress and so on. Does it really take 2,000 pages to outline a plan to cover those 36 million or so who don’t have — or maybe who don’t want to have — health insurance? And then I read this via an AP story in the Akron Beacon Journal Sunday: “At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill’s most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the premiums would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.” Say what? Good grief.
• Following the passage in the House, President O called it a “courageous vote.” Really? It looks like politics as usual to me. And shouldn’t there be an expectation that those who we elect to public office will actually vote in the public interest? If you are doing what you believe is right — without always looking forward to the next election — then it doesn’t seem as though courage would be as important as ethics. Sigh.
• How did health care get mired in the abortion debate? This has been the voting litmus test for candidates and judges. Will this issue now decide health care as well?
• Does anyone really trust the spending estimates — or the publicly stated ways to reduce costs? Here’s from USA Today: “To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare’s projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4% on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.” Good luck with that.

Oh well. As I said, a complicated issue — and any kind of legislation still has a long and difficult road before it it travels from the Congress to the White House for the Prez to sign into law.

And I don’t have high hopes that we’ll get this in the Senate.

But what we need now is some plain talk — some simple explanations ranging from coverage to costs. The fact that many (most, including me?) really don’t understand this bill makes it an easy target. Death panels anyone?

And most of all, we need some common sense to enter into all of this.

Yes, it’s that important.

 

 

Swine Flu and Wall Street — Huh?

Oh boy. Another swine flu shitstorm. And it involves the Wizards of Wall Street. But it’s about more than who gets the scarce vaccine (or not) these days. It’s all about trust.

Here’s the back-story.

A number of big Wall Street firms — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and others — have received the vaccine — while many people on Main Street who fall into the “high-risk” category remain essentially waiting out in the cold and in the queue. And it doesn’t appear that the Wall Street guys and gals have broken any rules or done anything wrong — other than reinforce the public perception that they are, ah, pigs.

Many organizations — business, nonprofits, education, government and so on — arrange for employees to receive flu shots and other medical services at the workplace. When I worked at Goodrich, there was a doctor on staff, even when the company had essentially downsized in Akron to the point where it was just a white-collar headquarters operation. Pretty sweet, actually.

So it doesn’t surprise me that the Wall Street firms do likewise — and getting hold of the swine flu vaccine to administer to their “high-risk” employees — pregnant women, for example — makes sense.

But many don’t trust that those high-risk individuals will be the ones who actually get the vaccine. And the reputation of the Wall Street firms is so bad — and deservedly so — that it is hard to feel good about them getting even equal treatment these days. The thought of them moving to the head of the line, well, where is that pitchfork?

Ah, trust. Once lost, hard to regain.

And once you are viewed as swine, you’re an easy target.

For instance, here are some comments by Sen. Chris Dodd, as reported by Politico:

“It is hard to believe that at a time when even the most vulnerable in our society are unable to obtain H1N1 vaccinations, the government is sending doses to private firms on Wall Street,” Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said in a statement. “People are frustrated by the government’s response to this crisis, and with news like this, who can blame them? “

“Vaccines should go to people who need them most, not people who happen to work on Wall Street,” said Dodd, who’s also readying financial reform legislation that Wall Street won’t like.

And more from the Politico story:

News reports of that large, private employers in New York City – including Wall Street banks – and been sent of the scarce H1N1 vaccines set of a feeding frenzy Thursday. The Service Employees Union International jumped into the fray early, issuing a public call for the Wall Street fat cats to donate their doses to public hospitals.

“It’s bad enough that Wall Street crashed our economy and is back to paying out platinum bonuses after taking trillions in taxpayer-funded bailouts and backstops. But purposely endangering the health of millions of Americans during a public health crisis crosses all lines of decency,” the union’s secretary-treasurer Anna Burger said in a statement.

Ouch.

Anyway, this story ain’t done yet.

Joe Weisenthal, writing on businessinsider.com, reports that the House Energy and Commerce Health subcommittee will hold hearings on Nov. 18.

Let’s hope that if the Wall Street Wizards testify they have the sense to cover their mouths if they cough.

Swine Flu and Mandated Sick Days

I guess if (when?) I get the swine flu I’ll just stay home. Hey, I do that most days anyway. Not everyone is so fortunate. The fact that many people — including many single parents — have to make a decision about going to work sick or not getting paid is triggering discussion about an important issue: mandated sick days and time off the job. And it’s controversial — especially from the standpoint of many small-business owners.

It is also an issue that is starting to gain national news coverage — and legislative interest. Here’s from a NYT article by Steven Greenhouse, “Lack of Paid Sick Days May Worsen Flu Pandemic“:

Public health experts worried about the spread of the H1N1 flu are raising concerns that workers who deal with the public, like waiters and child care employees, are jeopardizing others by reporting to work sick because they do not get paid for days they miss for illness.

Tens of millions of people, or about 40 percent of all private-sector workers, do not receive paid sick days, and as a result many of them cannot afford to stay home when they are ill. Even some companies that provide paid sick days have policies that make it difficult to call in sick, like giving demerits each time someone misses a day.

This causes a dilemma for many employees — and employers. And in that environment, can legislation be far behind? From the NYT article:

Many worker groups and women’s groups have seized on the H1N1 pandemic to argue that Congress should enact legislation guaranteeing paid sick days. San Francisco and Washington have enacted such legislation, but similar measures face obstacles in Congress.

“Sometimes you talk about legislation in the abstract, but this is making people begin to understand the problem,” said Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut and lead sponsor in the House of a bill, with more than 100 co-sponsors, that would require employers with 15 or more workers to provide seven paid sick days a year.

Business groups oppose such legislation, calling it expensive and unnecessary. They say that employers already allow and even encourage sick employees to stay home.

“The vast majority of employers provide paid leave of some sort,” said Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the United States Chamber of Commerce. “The problem is not nearly as great as some people say. Lots of employers work these things out on an ad hoc basis with their employees.”

If you were sick with swine flu — or whatever — would you stay home if it meant not getting paid?

I’ve never had to make that decision. Others do.

Stay tuned. This is an issue that isn’t going away — even after the swine flu emergency is just a memory.

NYC Marathon Winner: Not American Enough?

Wow. Another great morning for a predawn run here in NE Ohio. And I didn’t quite cover marathon distance: short by 21 miles and change, without putting too fine a point on it. But I was up and moving and thinking about the kerfuffle surrounding the NYC Marathon Sunday and winner Meb Keflezighi.

Oh boy. Here’s the back-story.

Meb and his family came to the United States from Eritrea when he was 12. Sunday he became the first American male to win the NYC Marathon since Alberto Salazar in 1982. And Meb did it with class, humility and sporting a running shirt that proudly proclaimed U.S.A. (Photo credit: Uli Seit for The New York Times.)

For a running jingoist like me, that seems pretty neat. Dare I say it: woot! But apparently not everyone agrees.

Here’s from a NYT story yesterday by Gina Kolata, “Truly American? Debate Dogs a Triumph in a Marathon“:

As soon as Mebrahtom Keflezighi, better known as Meb, won the New York City Marathon on Sunday, an uncommon sports dispute erupted online, fraught with racial and nationalistic components: Should Keflezighi’s triumph count as an American victory?

He was widely celebrated as the first American to win the New York race since 1982. Having immigrated to the United States at age 12, he is an American citizen and a product of American distance running programs at the youth, college and professional levels.

But, some said, because he was born in Eritrea, he is not really an American runner.

The debate reveals what some academics say are common assumptions and stereotypes about race and sports and athletic achievement in the United States. Its dimensions, they add, go beyond the particulars of Keflezighi and bear on undercurrents of nationalism and racism that are not often voiced.

“Race is still extremely important when you think about athletics,” said David Wiggins, a professor at George Mason University who studies African-Americans and sports. “There is this notion about innate physiological gifts that certain races presumably possess. Quite frankly, I think it feeds into deep-seated stereotypes. The more blatant forms of racial discrimination and illegal forms have been eliminated, but more subtle forms of discrimination still exist.”

“Should Keflezighi’s triumph count as an American victory?”

Maybe Meb answers that question better than anyone. Here’s from Kolata’s article:

Keflezighi said on Monday that remarks about his heritage were not new. “I’ve had to deal with it,” he said. “But, hey, I’ve been here 22 years. And the U.S.A. is a land of immigrants. A lot of people have come from different places.”

C’mon folks — get a grip on reality. And not just the reality of Meb Keflezighi winning the marathon — but the reality of the changing demographics of this nation in general.

And, by the way. Alberto Salazar was born in Cuba.

 

Air Travel and Brain Droppings

Great run this morning at 5 a.m.: cool, clear and almost perfectly quiet. Contrast that to yesterday morning when I was standing shoeless in the security queue at the Akron/Canton airport on the first leg of my out-and-back day trip to DC.

I don’t enjoy traveling much these days. Vacations — yeah, OK. Work — nah. Business travel ranks right up there with a colonoscopy. Just sayin.

Here are some brain droppings from the trip:

• What did we do to amuse ourselves before cell phones? I know it is near impossible now to drive a car without talking or texting, something to take our minds off keeping the car or truck moving from point A to point B. Yet it is amazing to be in an airport — or in an airport bar (full disclosure here) — and see how many people are talking, texting, doing e-mail and so on. Almost everyone (myself included) — which mirrors research by the Pew Research Center and other organizations indicating that more than 83 percent of us now have a cell phone. Wonder if we’ll reach the day when we quit talking face to face — especially to strangers?
• I worry now about who is flying the plane. Is/are he/she/they awake? Any job related or personal problems the passengers should know about? Is the pilot and co-pilot adequately paid? On the regional airline like the one I took yesterday, probably not. Here’s a NYT story (“Still on the Job, but at Half the Pay“) about a pilot who was downgraded to first officer as his company pared costs. He took a pay cut of nearly 50 percent — and now makes about $34,000 a year. That’s barely teacher money. Oops. I digress. Since you would think (hope?) that flying required some skill and training, that doesn’t strike me as much of a living wage. And I would kind of like the guy or gal in charge to be happy on the job — as I’m hurling through space. And my ticket cost a little north of $620. Not even any complimentary pretzels or nuts.
• The guy sitting across the aisle and one row in front of me coughed from the time we got on the plane in DC until we were on terra firma in Ohio. Since I have to undress these days to get on the plane — shouldn’t this guy have been asked to leave mid-flight? Just askin.

Oh, well. I think I’ll just stay home today.

 

NYC Marathon: Inspiring Stories

I opined in this space Friday that most running the NYC Marathon today had a story. Yeah, the elite runners do it as their living — and for the competition. Nothing wrong in that. But for the 40,000 or so others, it’s a story about accomplishing something, big or small. And in the 30 or so years I’ve been running and participating in road races, I find those human interest stories real — and compelling.

Not everyone agrees. In fact, Cameron Stracher, the publisher of the New York Law School Review who is writing a book about running, wrote an op-ed article printed in the NYT Saturday, “Running Without a Narrative.” The call-out blurb: “Is the marathon flagging because it has lost its sense of story.”

And this is a gross generalization of what is a thoughtful article — but Stracher, in effect, looks at the lack of world-class American marathoners in recent decades and points to a number of reasons, including making the argument that news and other reports about marathons (and Olympic events and so on) tend to focus on human-interest stories and not the race and what it takes to compete at the elite level.

Well, then we get to race day Sunday and the story of Meb Keflezighi. He won the marathon — the first from the USA to do so since 1982. Here’s from the NYT story by Lynn Zinser, “Keflezighi’s U.S.A. Breaks the Tape“:

Of all the American contenders to try and break the 27-year men’s drought in the New York City Marathon, Meb Keflezighi may have represented the American dream more than any of them. Born in war-torn Eritrea, one of 11 siblings in a village with no electricity, Keflezighi now wears his American citizenship on his chest. He was the one American contender who wore the letters U.S.A. on his running top Sunday.

Keflezighi pointed to those letters as the Central Park crowd roared as he crossed the finish line first, capturing the first American victory since Alberto Salazar last won it in 1982. When his victory was assured, Keflezighi dropped to the ground, tears streaming down his face. It was the first marathon victory of his career and washed away years of American futility here.

“U.S.A. gave me all the opportunity in the world, education, sports, lifestyle,” Keflezighi said. “This is so special to me.”

Hey. A pretty inspiring human-interest story.

But only one of about 40,000.

Marathons and Plodders: Why Not?

I didn’t run this morning. I went around and around in a circle for 50 minutes on the elliptical trainer instead. But I expect I’ll hit the concrete Saturday and Sunday for my early a.m. running tour of the neighborhood.

I’d rather be in New York Sunday — running the New York City Marathon with some 40,000 others. I gave up on that idea about 10 years ago. Why? Well, a couple reasons.

For me, training for a marathon became too difficult. Trying to build mileage to the point where you were spending your weekends (or weekdays) doing 15-mile or longer runs before the race was just too much.

The run itself — for most people like me — is difficult. Let’s face it. You get to 20 miles — and you still have a 10K to go.

And after completing three marathons (Columbus, Marine Corps and Pittsburgh) now more than 20 years ago, I didn’t want to take the chance of finishing near the end of the pack — or not finishing at all. Not everyone shares that concern — nor should they.

To finish a marathon under four hours, you have to maintain a pace of about 9 minutes a mile. Last year, according to an article in the NYT, 44 percent of the runners in the Honolulu Marathon finished in more than six hours — with some stopping to have lunch along the way. Woot.

In New York, last year about 20 percent of the field finished in more than five hours — and the race officially ends at 6:30 (although the timing will continue past the eight hour mark).

So what? Well apparently this is becoming  an issue among race directors and marathoners — pitting the so-called hard-core runners against the runners against the joggers against the walkers and so on. Here’s from the NYT article by Juliet Macur, “Plodders Have a Place, but Is It in a Marathon?“:

Every weekend during this fall marathon season, long after most runners have completed the 26.2-mile course — and very likely after many have showered, changed and headed for a meal — a group of stragglers crosses the finish line.

Many of those slower runners, claiming that late is better than never, receive a finisher’s medal just like every other participant. Having traversed the same route as the fleeter-footed runners — perhaps in twice the amount of time — they get to call themselves marathoners.

And it’s driving some hard-core runners crazy.

“It’s a joke to run a marathon by walking every other mile or by finishing in six, seven, eight hours,” said Adrienne Wald, 54, the women’s cross-country coach at the College of New Rochelle, who ran her first marathon in 1984. “It used to be that running a marathon was worth something — there used to be a pride saying that you ran a marathon, but not anymore. Now it’s, ‘How low is the bar?’ ”

“How low is the bar?” I won’t pretend to have an answer to that — if there even is one. People run a marathon — or pick any distance, running or walking — for a variety of reasons. And I’ve always considered these events to be a celebration of life — of setting a goal and working toward accomplishing it. Beyond the elite runners, you’ll see a lot of smiles and a lot of personal stories unfolding among the thousands who work their way through Central Park to the finish line on Sunday, regardless of the time on the clock.

In my three marathons, I finished in 4:05, 4:11 and 4:28 (give or take a few seconds). So maybe that qualifies me as a plodder. Who knows?

What I do know is that I would love to have the opportunity — and stamina, mental and physical — to run another marathon.

So good luck to all who are running the New York Marathon Sunday.

And unless you’re getting paid for the 26.2 mile self-propelled trip through the Big Apple, don’t worry about the time.

In the long run it doesn’t matter.