As you may be able to tell from the title (and the fact that I'm putting this up only a few minutes after a commuting post) this is a political rant. The global warming side of things does relate (slightly) to cycling though.
I fail to understand the massive opposition to the concept of climate change/global warming that persists in a lot of libertarian circles. The opposition to government mandated action on the problem I understand, that runs counter to the central core of libertarian philosophy. What I am talking about is the oft-repeated antipathy towards the idea that human may just have screwed the planet up a wee bit, and that it might be a good idea to do something about it. The most prominent person in this camp used to be Ronald Bailey, the science writer for reason. Recently though he came out as being open to the idea of man-made climate change (here for the full "saga" as he calls it). I have always felt that Bailey at least was arguing based on the science - he did not see specific scientific evidence that convinced him that human action had led to climate change, or that convinced him that the "changes" people were pointing to weren't part of a larger cycle. Fine, if you disagree with the science that's what debate and discussion is for.
What I take issue with is the trend in many libertarian circles to simply deride the idea of man-made climate change. This isn't debating on the merits, just slamming the side you don't agree with. It reminds me of the way Christopher Hitchens is when he writes about religion, muddying argument with insult. If you are going to argue against something give me a reason to think you have some substance. Otherwise you're just doing a Kerry - my own pejorative based on John Kerry's half-assed run for president where he did not once give a reason why voters should pick him, and instead based his whole campaign on reasons to not vote for Bush.
Monday, March 31, 2008
When it feels harder than usual...
there's probably a reason. I had that driven home this morning on my ride to work.
I noticed starting out that it felt a little tougher than normal to pedal, but I chalked it up to the load I was carrying (I don't normally bring my laptop, and I had a big bag of apples) and the fact that I'd been off the bike for a few days. The closer I got to work, the harder it got to pedal until I hit a point where I could hardly move without standing. Given that there was a heavy mist in the air (it wasn't really falling rain, just sort of hanging there) I didn't want to stand since sitting back down would result in a wet butt. I took advantage of a light to examine my rear wheel, thinking that the brake might be stuck. Instead I found that the wheel itself had shifted out of position, and was not so much rubbing as locked up on the chainstay.
I had ridden into down town last week to have gelato and coffee with some friends, and while I was waiting for them to show up I decided to adjust the rear wheel, because the chain was looking a little slack. I guess I didn't tighten the drive side up enough, because the commute this morning pulled the drive side forward a good chunk, resulting in my pedal problems.
The moral of this story - double check any maintenance work you do before heading out to ride in the rain.
I noticed starting out that it felt a little tougher than normal to pedal, but I chalked it up to the load I was carrying (I don't normally bring my laptop, and I had a big bag of apples) and the fact that I'd been off the bike for a few days. The closer I got to work, the harder it got to pedal until I hit a point where I could hardly move without standing. Given that there was a heavy mist in the air (it wasn't really falling rain, just sort of hanging there) I didn't want to stand since sitting back down would result in a wet butt. I took advantage of a light to examine my rear wheel, thinking that the brake might be stuck. Instead I found that the wheel itself had shifted out of position, and was not so much rubbing as locked up on the chainstay.
I had ridden into down town last week to have gelato and coffee with some friends, and while I was waiting for them to show up I decided to adjust the rear wheel, because the chain was looking a little slack. I guess I didn't tighten the drive side up enough, because the commute this morning pulled the drive side forward a good chunk, resulting in my pedal problems.
The moral of this story - double check any maintenance work you do before heading out to ride in the rain.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Touring build update
A week or so back I went back out to Mt. Airy to pick up my LHT, now with the S&S Couplers installed. The guys at Mt. Airy sent it up to Bilenky to have the work done, and because of when it got shipped (a couple of days before NAHBS) it got to Philly without a name attached. The end result was that it was done and sitting in the Bileny shop for about a week, when I emailed Larry to ask for an update and he was able to bring it home.
The next step is for me to go back out to Mt. Airy with a parts list (I emailed it out to them last week) to finalize the parts and put the orders in. Once the parts are ordered it will just be a matter of waiting for them to come in and then I'll have a working bike.
If I get super lucky I'll have the rig for a trip to Portland in a couple of weeks. If not, I hope to have it for my triathlon in LA at the end of April.
Also, I now have a fairly large bruise on my upper left arm - the result of the slo-mo dooring I had last week. It's about the same size around as 2 water bottle tops side-by-side, and is mainly yellow. Guess it's a result of being pretty deep into the arm. It's only tender if I press right in the middle of it, which is a good sign I guess.
The next step is for me to go back out to Mt. Airy with a parts list (I emailed it out to them last week) to finalize the parts and put the orders in. Once the parts are ordered it will just be a matter of waiting for them to come in and then I'll have a working bike.
If I get super lucky I'll have the rig for a trip to Portland in a couple of weeks. If not, I hope to have it for my triathlon in LA at the end of April.
Also, I now have a fairly large bruise on my upper left arm - the result of the slo-mo dooring I had last week. It's about the same size around as 2 water bottle tops side-by-side, and is mainly yellow. Guess it's a result of being pretty deep into the arm. It's only tender if I press right in the middle of it, which is a good sign I guess.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Politics, III
My upper arm is killing me, and the bruise from the door Monday is coming in nicely. Added to that is a light rain and the fact that I'll probably be pulling another 11+ hour day in the office, so no riding. Not riding (2 days, will be three because of meetings tomorrow) makes me cranky, and being cranky and reading bad political coverage makes me rant.
I would expect that writers, even blog writers, from the Wall Street Journal, would take care to make sure they are accurate with the way they use their words. Then again, this post from the "Washington Wire" blog (March 18, 2008) seems to indicate otherwise. The post is about the possible future of the MI and FL revotes, with the main coverage being to claims from Harold Ikes that the Obama team is dragging their heels over MI and that FL would be able to run the revote if they really tried. At the end of the third paragraph it says: "Clinton won both primaries but the states were stripped of their convention votes after holding primaries earlier than the party allowed."
That statement is just wrong. The states were told, before they voted, that they would not have representation at the convention if they stuck to the early primary dates. Because of this all of the major Democratic candidates except Clinton took their names off of the MI ballot, and all candidates agreed to not campaign in FL. Clinton took 55% of the vote in a state (MI) where the other major contestant was "none of the above".
To say the states were stripped after the primary makes it sound like it was a surprise attack by the DNC. Now I have no dog in the fight and I think the DNC must do something to include the voters of MI and FL or risk losing support in the fall. My issue here is with writing that, either intentionally or not, will mislead readers who weren't paying attention months ago when the decision to strip the delegates first occurred. Sloppy reporting can never be tolerated.
I would expect that writers, even blog writers, from the Wall Street Journal, would take care to make sure they are accurate with the way they use their words. Then again, this post from the "Washington Wire" blog (March 18, 2008) seems to indicate otherwise. The post is about the possible future of the MI and FL revotes, with the main coverage being to claims from Harold Ikes that the Obama team is dragging their heels over MI and that FL would be able to run the revote if they really tried. At the end of the third paragraph it says: "Clinton won both primaries but the states were stripped of their convention votes after holding primaries earlier than the party allowed."
That statement is just wrong. The states were told, before they voted, that they would not have representation at the convention if they stuck to the early primary dates. Because of this all of the major Democratic candidates except Clinton took their names off of the MI ballot, and all candidates agreed to not campaign in FL. Clinton took 55% of the vote in a state (MI) where the other major contestant was "none of the above".
To say the states were stripped after the primary makes it sound like it was a surprise attack by the DNC. Now I have no dog in the fight and I think the DNC must do something to include the voters of MI and FL or risk losing support in the fall. My issue here is with writing that, either intentionally or not, will mislead readers who weren't paying attention months ago when the decision to strip the delegates first occurred. Sloppy reporting can never be tolerated.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Getting doored in slow motion
- or - A reminder that momentum is a combination of speed and MASS.
I am a clyde. Unloaded, without my tank of a bike I'm over 250, so when you add in the bike and my junk for commuting I've got a good bit of mass. Last night on my way home from work it caught up with my when I got doored in slow motion.
I was riding past the strip club district in Baltimore (behind police HQ if anyone is looking) and, as usual, traffic was backed up. So, as usual, I slid along between the parked cars and the traffic lane. I slow way down when I do this, and was riding with my right foot off the pedal in case I needed to put it down to stop. Unexpectedly, a woman decided to get out of the passenger side of one of the cars in traffic. She didn't fling the door open, but opened it slowly and I though I had room. Essentially what happened is she just kept opening it and stuck my bicep with the corner of the door.
It was slow, and I was moving pretty slowly, but wow did it hurt. Still does in fact. I imagine in a day or so there will be a nice bruise, but for now I just have a still left bicep as a reminder that (especially in Baltimore) I need to pay close attention to the cars that shouldn't be doing anything odd.
I am a clyde. Unloaded, without my tank of a bike I'm over 250, so when you add in the bike and my junk for commuting I've got a good bit of mass. Last night on my way home from work it caught up with my when I got doored in slow motion.
I was riding past the strip club district in Baltimore (behind police HQ if anyone is looking) and, as usual, traffic was backed up. So, as usual, I slid along between the parked cars and the traffic lane. I slow way down when I do this, and was riding with my right foot off the pedal in case I needed to put it down to stop. Unexpectedly, a woman decided to get out of the passenger side of one of the cars in traffic. She didn't fling the door open, but opened it slowly and I though I had room. Essentially what happened is she just kept opening it and stuck my bicep with the corner of the door.
It was slow, and I was moving pretty slowly, but wow did it hurt. Still does in fact. I imagine in a day or so there will be a nice bruise, but for now I just have a still left bicep as a reminder that (especially in Baltimore) I need to pay close attention to the cars that shouldn't be doing anything odd.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Awareness
This awareness test has been getting a lot of "press" from the cycling blogs I read. If you haven't checked it out, go ahead and do so before reading the rest of this post, otherwise, it just won't make much sense.
***
I've been seeing posts about "the test" for most of the week, and really didn't care that much about it. Finally today I decided to take it and see what the noise was about. I guess I'm not like any of the other cycling bloggers, because I found it ridiculous.
It is intended to show that you miss things because you don't think to look for them, but that's not what it is really testing. The whole set-up is designed to blind you to the other things occurring in the frame. You're not being tested on awareness, you're being tested on focus, the opposite in many ways from awareness. To be aware of the situation you need to avoid getting focused in on a single point, in this case having to watch one of two balls and see which color team is tossing it around. That requires focus, both to make sure you're following the correct ball and that you're keeping an accurate count of the tosses. Awareness would be seeing that there were two teams, that they were tossing balls, but not really caring about how many times or who.
I suppose at some level the point can be made that this is the mentality of many drivers, that if you (cyclist) don't look like a car then the drivers won't see you. Again, if that is what they want to show, then it is not an awareness test, or demonstration, but a lack of awareness.
I don't need a nifty little dancing bear to tell me that getting to focused on a single thing is bad when you're cycling, I just need to ride for about 30 seconds. I think that is true for any cyclist. I know that drivers aren't looking for me, so I ride in a conspicuous manner. I know that drivers aren't prepared for me to appear from certain places, and that's why I don't ride on the sidewalk or use crosswalks with my bike. I put myself in a place where drivers will be looking for other cars, I ride upright, not down in the drops, to maximize my profile, I wear contrasting colors to make it less likely that I will blend with the background.
More important than any of that, though, is that I ride expecting the drivers to not know I'm there. I watch traffic around me, including a mirror. I don't blast across streets, even when I have the light. I keep my speed at a point where I can stop easily if a car appears in front of me.
In short, I do what I can to be conspicuous on the road, but only in case I miss something. Cyclists have a right to expect to be safe on the roads, but we all know that most drivers are not going to see us. I take my right to be safe and file it in the back of my head, and ride as if it does not exist, and the only way to be safe is by making it happen through my actions.
***
I've been seeing posts about "the test" for most of the week, and really didn't care that much about it. Finally today I decided to take it and see what the noise was about. I guess I'm not like any of the other cycling bloggers, because I found it ridiculous.
It is intended to show that you miss things because you don't think to look for them, but that's not what it is really testing. The whole set-up is designed to blind you to the other things occurring in the frame. You're not being tested on awareness, you're being tested on focus, the opposite in many ways from awareness. To be aware of the situation you need to avoid getting focused in on a single point, in this case having to watch one of two balls and see which color team is tossing it around. That requires focus, both to make sure you're following the correct ball and that you're keeping an accurate count of the tosses. Awareness would be seeing that there were two teams, that they were tossing balls, but not really caring about how many times or who.
I suppose at some level the point can be made that this is the mentality of many drivers, that if you (cyclist) don't look like a car then the drivers won't see you. Again, if that is what they want to show, then it is not an awareness test, or demonstration, but a lack of awareness.
I don't need a nifty little dancing bear to tell me that getting to focused on a single thing is bad when you're cycling, I just need to ride for about 30 seconds. I think that is true for any cyclist. I know that drivers aren't looking for me, so I ride in a conspicuous manner. I know that drivers aren't prepared for me to appear from certain places, and that's why I don't ride on the sidewalk or use crosswalks with my bike. I put myself in a place where drivers will be looking for other cars, I ride upright, not down in the drops, to maximize my profile, I wear contrasting colors to make it less likely that I will blend with the background.
More important than any of that, though, is that I ride expecting the drivers to not know I'm there. I watch traffic around me, including a mirror. I don't blast across streets, even when I have the light. I keep my speed at a point where I can stop easily if a car appears in front of me.
In short, I do what I can to be conspicuous on the road, but only in case I miss something. Cyclists have a right to expect to be safe on the roads, but we all know that most drivers are not going to see us. I take my right to be safe and file it in the back of my head, and ride as if it does not exist, and the only way to be safe is by making it happen through my actions.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
More politics
After just ranting about the Dem primary a day or so ago, both camps go and do something that makes me want to rant again. I promise, this should not be taken as an indication that I'm getting away from cycling content, I just haven't managed to get on the bike for a little while and I'm bombarded with political news constantly because of work.
First - the Clinton camp. The current line of argument coming from the Clinton team, primarily from Prez Clinton, is that Obama would make a great VP to Hillary's P. There are so many things wrong with this line of thought that I have a hard time getting started. I'll hit the two biggest, and leave it there. First, is the answer that Obama is using, namely that he is ahead in the pledged delegate count, the popular vote and the number of state contests won, so why would he even think about taking the VP slot. There really is no need to get deeper into it. He's winning, not her, so if there is going to be any talk about a combo ticket (which is a BAD idea in my opinion, not a dream) it should be the other way around. The other problem with the "Obama as Veep" argument is that he is too politically ambitious to be Clinton's VP. What does ambition have to do with it? That's easy. Ordinarily the VP is the Number 2, in a Clinton White House the VP will be Number 3. Does anybody really believe that Bill won't be involved in a lot of the traditional VP roles? About all Obama (or anyone else in the Veep job) would have to look forward to is running the Senate.
Now the Obama camp screw-up. This one I just caught because I'm about a day behind in my news reading, but an Obama supporter (I think it was Dodd) is suggesting an even split of the MI/FL delegates. My last political post was on the nightmare that including those voters fairly will be, and this ain't it. An even split of the delegates does nothing to acknowledge the voters of those states. In fact, it essentially ignores them. The whole point of "collecting" delegates is to gain an advantage over your opponent, either in a specific state or in total. Splitting the delegates in half benefits nobody and is a horrible idea. It doesn't benefit the candidates, because the difference between them remains the same. Without MI and FL in the contest, the magic number is reduced and it is possible one might reach it (I don't have the figures in front of me), adding them back in makes it very unlikely that either candidate will win, unless the two states are added in and allowed to vote. It also does nothing to re-enfranchise the voters, because their wishes aren't even being give a token nod. MI and FL either need to be given the opportunity to revote (with the DNC helping to defray the cost) or they need to be decertified, as was the original statement, because the state party bosses chose to violate the will of the DNC.
First - the Clinton camp. The current line of argument coming from the Clinton team, primarily from Prez Clinton, is that Obama would make a great VP to Hillary's P. There are so many things wrong with this line of thought that I have a hard time getting started. I'll hit the two biggest, and leave it there. First, is the answer that Obama is using, namely that he is ahead in the pledged delegate count, the popular vote and the number of state contests won, so why would he even think about taking the VP slot. There really is no need to get deeper into it. He's winning, not her, so if there is going to be any talk about a combo ticket (which is a BAD idea in my opinion, not a dream) it should be the other way around. The other problem with the "Obama as Veep" argument is that he is too politically ambitious to be Clinton's VP. What does ambition have to do with it? That's easy. Ordinarily the VP is the Number 2, in a Clinton White House the VP will be Number 3. Does anybody really believe that Bill won't be involved in a lot of the traditional VP roles? About all Obama (or anyone else in the Veep job) would have to look forward to is running the Senate.
Now the Obama camp screw-up. This one I just caught because I'm about a day behind in my news reading, but an Obama supporter (I think it was Dodd) is suggesting an even split of the MI/FL delegates. My last political post was on the nightmare that including those voters fairly will be, and this ain't it. An even split of the delegates does nothing to acknowledge the voters of those states. In fact, it essentially ignores them. The whole point of "collecting" delegates is to gain an advantage over your opponent, either in a specific state or in total. Splitting the delegates in half benefits nobody and is a horrible idea. It doesn't benefit the candidates, because the difference between them remains the same. Without MI and FL in the contest, the magic number is reduced and it is possible one might reach it (I don't have the figures in front of me), adding them back in makes it very unlikely that either candidate will win, unless the two states are added in and allowed to vote. It also does nothing to re-enfranchise the voters, because their wishes aren't even being give a token nod. MI and FL either need to be given the opportunity to revote (with the DNC helping to defray the cost) or they need to be decertified, as was the original statement, because the state party bosses chose to violate the will of the DNC.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Political update
A little while back I did a straight political post expressing my hope that both parties' primary races would result in brokered conventions. I stated that the likelihood of it happening for the Reps was pretty high, and less so for the Dems. Boy was I wrong.
McCain has wrapped it up for the Reps, and even a couple of weeks back it became pretty clear that he had it. Huckabee held on for a little while, past the point where he could have possibly expected to win, and it's over now. The Dems have settled into a two person battle that looks like it will go the distance, more out of ego and stubbornness than anything else, with the media egging it on.
Why do I say that? Well, the results of the March 4 primaries were almost perfectly split, with neither candidate gaining any ground. I think the final tally was a net gain by Clinton of 7 pledged delegates. And yet, the same outlets who were saying her campaign was dead and that she needed to get out, for the good of the Party, are now saying that she's regained command of the race.
With 7 delegates?
The big issue the Dems have to deal with now is how to treat Michigan and Florida fairly. The states moved their primaries/caucuses to a point on the calendar that had been tagged off-limits by the DNC, and so they were stripped of their delegates to the convention. Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in MI (both Obama and Edwards removed themselves) so she took a good chunk of the votes, and nobody "actively" campaigned in FL, with Clinton again winning the state. Obviously, the Clinton camp has a lot to gain by seating the delegates as pledged, and the Obama camp has incentive to block that. The trick for Obama is going to be arguing to redistribute those delegates in a fair (to his mind) way while not seeming to go counter to the "wishes" of the voters.
Glad I'm not the one having to set it up.
McCain has wrapped it up for the Reps, and even a couple of weeks back it became pretty clear that he had it. Huckabee held on for a little while, past the point where he could have possibly expected to win, and it's over now. The Dems have settled into a two person battle that looks like it will go the distance, more out of ego and stubbornness than anything else, with the media egging it on.
Why do I say that? Well, the results of the March 4 primaries were almost perfectly split, with neither candidate gaining any ground. I think the final tally was a net gain by Clinton of 7 pledged delegates. And yet, the same outlets who were saying her campaign was dead and that she needed to get out, for the good of the Party, are now saying that she's regained command of the race.
With 7 delegates?
The big issue the Dems have to deal with now is how to treat Michigan and Florida fairly. The states moved their primaries/caucuses to a point on the calendar that had been tagged off-limits by the DNC, and so they were stripped of their delegates to the convention. Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in MI (both Obama and Edwards removed themselves) so she took a good chunk of the votes, and nobody "actively" campaigned in FL, with Clinton again winning the state. Obviously, the Clinton camp has a lot to gain by seating the delegates as pledged, and the Obama camp has incentive to block that. The trick for Obama is going to be arguing to redistribute those delegates in a fair (to his mind) way while not seeming to go counter to the "wishes" of the voters.
Glad I'm not the one having to set it up.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Commute 3/3/08
Time of departure: 7:50A
Temperature: 40F
FINALLY! It's been two weeks since I've been on the bike, and finally today I made it back. Two weeks ago I was in Atlanta for a work conference, which meant a lot of time in the hotel and no biking. Last week was one of those weeks where I had meetings and rain and all sorts of things that conspired to put me in the lazy mode and keep me off the bike. No more.
Today is beautiful and is supposed to get better. The predicted high is around 60. A friend of mine, a more-or-less lifelong MD resident was describing the schizoid nature of March to me yesterday, and now it's coming to pass. Well, I'll take the sun while I have it.
I did do something different on my commute in this morning, sidewalk hopping to avoid traffic. There are a few sections in the middle of my commute that tend to have heavier traffic. Today I hit most of those blocks while they had a red light. If traffic is moving I have no problem planting myself a few feet from the parked cars and doing my thing, but I'm not quite balanced enough to slide between the parked cars and stopped traffic, especially since there is often not enough room. I usually just slow down and push along with my foot on the ground, but today there were two block (stacked with cars from end to end) that had nobody on the sidewalk, so I hopped on and cruised that way. I can say it won't be habit-forming, because getting back to the street and having to be even more aware of turning cars was a little dicey, but all in all it was nice to be able to stay at speed past the cars.
Temperature: 40F
FINALLY! It's been two weeks since I've been on the bike, and finally today I made it back. Two weeks ago I was in Atlanta for a work conference, which meant a lot of time in the hotel and no biking. Last week was one of those weeks where I had meetings and rain and all sorts of things that conspired to put me in the lazy mode and keep me off the bike. No more.
Today is beautiful and is supposed to get better. The predicted high is around 60. A friend of mine, a more-or-less lifelong MD resident was describing the schizoid nature of March to me yesterday, and now it's coming to pass. Well, I'll take the sun while I have it.
I did do something different on my commute in this morning, sidewalk hopping to avoid traffic. There are a few sections in the middle of my commute that tend to have heavier traffic. Today I hit most of those blocks while they had a red light. If traffic is moving I have no problem planting myself a few feet from the parked cars and doing my thing, but I'm not quite balanced enough to slide between the parked cars and stopped traffic, especially since there is often not enough room. I usually just slow down and push along with my foot on the ground, but today there were two block (stacked with cars from end to end) that had nobody on the sidewalk, so I hopped on and cruised that way. I can say it won't be habit-forming, because getting back to the street and having to be even more aware of turning cars was a little dicey, but all in all it was nice to be able to stay at speed past the cars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
