Happiness in the sense of something generally considered intrinsically desirable may be semantically/conceptually analysed as follows:
A fairly generalized, well-established, longer-term feeling, attitude, state of mind, mindset, outlook, way of being in the world characterized by a sense of satisfaction, peace of mind, contentment with oneself and one’s situation in the world, and enjoyment of life.
Happiness is semantically/conceptually (not just empirically/causally) associated with:
Being hopeful, optimistic, glad, cheerful, lighthearted, buoyant, joie de vivre, joy, serenity, tranquility, calm, inner fulfillment, satisfaction, sense of self-worth, feeling resilient, competent, capable, meaning in life, equanimity, acceptance, reconciliation, sensuous or even sensual delight, being able to relax, have fun, laugh.
Psychic states which, when longer-term or chronic, are opposed (semantically, not just empirically) to happiness are:
Anxiety, fear, depression, grief, ruminating, obsessing, brooding, gloom, hopelessness, apathy, boredom, anger, hatred, self-annoyance, shame, guilt, jealousy, envy, bitterness, resentment, feeling deprived, mistreated, unappreciated, unloved, put down, humiliated, oppressed, insecure, frustrated, being reactive, rigid, narrow, pain, hunger, tiredness.
‘Happiness’ has some semantic association with uses of ‘happy’ signifying felicitous, lucky, apt.
Happiness in children is a kind of spontaneous, carefree pleasure in life shielded from the harsher realities. In adults happiness is achieved despite acquaintance with, and personal experience of, misfortune, mistreatment and the responsibility of earning a living.
The notions of happiness associated with belief in heaven or paradise (or even nirvana) largely fit with the analysis given, but assume a more intense, unbroken, never-ending state surpassing earthly happiness. Heavenly or paradise happiness offers great beauty, joy, peace, brotherly love, reunion with (or at least merging with) loved ones, lack of all pain, conflict, deviousness, injustice, having innocent delight, sensuous even sensual delight – at least for men (Islam – houris). This idealized view of happiness, though consoling to many, may actually be a barrier to attainment of earthly happiness. Religious or ideological consolation, though a crutch, defence mechanism, support, and some comfort, offering hope, does not always bring happiness – there is still psychological turmoil, bitterness, anger, etc. – not mellowness and love in the heart for all. The notion of heavenly, paradise, or utopian happiness may reflect an immature desire for a mythical happy childhood where you are always loved and everyone thinks you are wonderful and special. Focus on attaining a perfect lover/partner (or Jesus, God, Buddha, Muhammad, Marxist utopia) may block you from appreciating valuing and embracing the real human lover/partner who is available to you but has flaws and deficiencies not fitting your ideal or fantasy.
Happiness means you are better able to withstand the inevitable misfortunes, mistreatment, lack of appreciation, rejection. It is unrealistic, though, to suppose that a happy person will not be distressed by setbacks even severe ones. A religious fanatic might happily die a martyr’s death for his cause yet even he might be devastated by learning his wife is unfaithful or that his child rejects his political/religious beliefs. Some calamities are enough to disrupt the happiness of almost all mortals: Being tortured or maimed, having a child murdered, learning at a fairly young age you have a terminal illness, becoming seriously disabled, the partner you love deserts you for someone younger, better looking, with more money or status (who is not, however, more talented, qualified, or with a better character), being continually ridiculed, humiliated, bullied, or denied basic rights.
Happiness (earthly) does not mean being immune from pain and unpleasant feelings. Rather it means being able to recover more quickly from grief, anger, anxiety, fear, jealousy, disappointment, and not be completely demoralized, undermined, devastated. When we say a couple are happily married it does not mean they never experience conflict or irritation with one another, are never attracted to someone else. Likewise, an unhappy, depressed person can still experience some pleasures, e.g. eating chocolate, making love, listening to music. A person can be happy despite having a lifelong painful affliction, e.g. periodic gut ache, migraine, but the pain is still disruptive, distracting, frustrating, immobilizing, unpleasant when it occurs. Even when the pain is severe, though, the happy person finds some comfort and consolation to hang onto.
Because of differences in genes, childhood training, acquired desires, temperament, disposition, personality, and traits there are different levels of happiness/unhappiness among people in very similar circumstances. Some are psychologically better equipped than others to cope with setbacks or distress. People do not all experience the same level of distress within the same setback or adverse situation. Nevertheless, even those who have a physical or mental disability, come from a relatively disadvantaged background, and are not particularly good looking or talented can work at cultivating happiness.
It is dishonest and hypocritical, however, to pretend that happiness depends mostly on your own inner character, own efforts, activities, mental training, positive attitude, and will power, and does not/should not depend on ‘external’, sometimes material conditions. Of course money does to some extent buy you happiness otherwise why do so many intelligent, well-read, sensitive people pursue it and once obtained hang onto it? Again, if money/wealth were merely a ‘convenience’ as some affluent people claim and not an important factor in their happiness, why would they object to giving up some of their ‘conveniences’ (luxuries? privileges?) so that others, far worse off yet deserving, could have the basics? Why complain about the greed of the rich if poverty is no barrier to happiness?
‘External’ factors influencing happiness are contrasted with the agent’s own mental and physical efforts. They include: Safe clean place to live; pleasant surroundings; leisure time; access to health care; appreciation for one’s efforts and achievements; social status; security of income, accommodation, and food; reasonable health; reasonable appearance; supportive, sympathetic friends and family; romantic partner with whom there is mutual attraction, sympathy, and understanding; a job which is meaningful, worthwhile, and in keeping with one’s qualifications and training.
Clearly, a certain level of wealth or income is important in securing some of these basic ‘external’ conditions conducive to happiness. Inner satisfaction produced by one’s own intellectual, artistic, moral, and spiritual efforts will not be sufficient to generate happiness. Even monks and nuns who have taken vows of poverty enjoy some of these ‘external’ conditions for happiness by virtue of the wealth and standing of their order and the community which gives them food, shelter, respect, and tax relief. In Canada in 2009 if you do not own your own accommodation or have it provided for you (and have no assets nor expectation of receiving some in the near future, e.g. inheritance) it would be very difficult to be happy on an income of less than $1,000 per month even if you are in reasonable health, of reasonable appearance, are not materialistic, do creative or intellectual work, practice meditation, empathetic connexion with others, etc.
Why then does the dogma or myth persist, especially among the affluent, that money is not important for happiness, and that you shouldn’t need appreciation, recognition, support from others in your efforts to be happy – the truly enlightened person will be above such material considerations?
First, it is hard for some to admit that they are relatively privileged, that not everyone could have their level of wealth and privilege, and that they enjoy these benefits largely by good fortune or accident of birth, rather than because of their own hard efforts, strength of character, special talent, etc.
Second, people like to see themselves as noble and not materialistic, independent and not reliant on approval from others. Hence, it disturbs their self-image to admit their happiness is largely dependent on being well-off, living in a good neighborhood, etc.
Third, it is upsetting to those who believe in the personal development movement that success in life or happiness doesn’t just depend on your own individual effort and attitude – that we are to some extent at the mercy of external forces.
Fourth, pretending money is not important to happiness is an excellent way of rationalizing not giving up a surplus to those less fortunate.
Among the poor there is some support for the myth that money doesn’t matter for happiness because of a sour grapes mentality – ‘I don’t have much chance of getting money and I’m scared to make the effort to get it so I’ll pretend it’s not important.’
Commonsense and an honest look at human nature and one’s own suggest that some money, material and external support are necessary for happiness. However, far less is required than people commonly suppose.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Greed: Analysis of
‘Greed’ is partly evaluative. Cf. ‘I want a living wage’, ‘You want more than an average share’, ‘He is greedy’. The concept ‘greed’ (avarice/cupidity rather than gluttony) may be analysed as follows :
Wanting and trying to obtain or maintain a share of some benefit (e.g. income, sick leave, housing, job security, inheritance) for oneself (or family, professional association, or class) which is unfair and unnecessary for leading a good life (when looked at fairly reasonably, dispassionately, objectively).
Willingness to disregard or downplay the legitimate claims of others in order to gain or maintain the excessive share.
Willingness to use power (e.g. coercion, political influence, strikes, restrictive practices, not necessarily physical violence) and misrepresentation (not necessarily illegal or criminal acts) to gain or maintain the excessive share.
‘Ann wants an unfair, excessive share but is not greedy’* verges on the contradictory.
According to this analysis there is a selfish/self-centred/self-seeking aspect to greed. ‘Andrew is greedy but not selfish’* is semantically odd. There is also a materialistic aspect to greed. ‘Alice is greedy but not particularly interested in wealth, income, luxuries, her own pleasure or status, material comforts, or possessions’* is also semantically odd. Conceivably, all members of a community might pursue material wealth excessively yet share fairly equitably (not the same as equally) and safeguard the environment and animal rights. We might still call such a community greedy rather than just materialistic. Usually, though, greed is semantically (cf. merely empirically/causally) associated with seeking to gain or maintain an undue share for oneself (own family, class, etc.) at the expense of others. Greed may be characterized as excessive materialism combined with disregard for the material well-being of others. Think of situations where we tell children, ‘Don’t be greedy’.
It is sometimes claimed there is a kind of ‘greed’ which enriches others rather than deprives them. Thus, suppose an entrepreneur introduces a technological innovation which helps raise the standard of living of the whole community. The entrepreneur may take for himself a large,excessive portion of the increase in wealth yet still the others are significantly better off than before. But although the entrepreneur may be entitled to a larger share than average it does not follow that he is entitled to take most of the increase for himself. For one thing, others are involved in the production of increased wealth – the inventor, factory manager, factory workers, etc. For another, the average hard-working member of the society may still be short of some basics. Think of a sports or movie star getting $1m for promoting a product while factory workers who make the product are better off by 50 cents an hour.
Sometimes a greedy person knows he is taking an unfair, excessive share but he doesn’t care. He may excuse himself by saying, ‘It’s a dog-eat-dog world…the weak go to the wall… you have to look out for number one…’ etc. Sometimes a person may be unaware that he is being greedy – he takes his excessive, unfair share for granted, and being pampered or spoiled doesn’t see that it is unfair and beyond what is needful. Often, though, a person has some awareness that he is being greedy but he suppresses or represses this awareness because he accepts that greed is an ignoble, undesirable quality and finds it threatening to his view of himself and the world to admit that this mean quality is present in himself and those he likes and admires.
Greed is typically directed at obtaining or maintaining more income, wealth, pleasure, material goods, luxuries for oneself or family – a better house, car, restaurants, holidays, travel, fancy clothes, boat, better health care and education for the kids, etc. However, the motive for, or even the focus of, greed may not be financial gain, wealth, and all the comforts, pleasures, luxuries, treats, conveniences, and security that money can buy. Rather, the underlying greed may be for status, recognition, power, or control. Thus we speak of the lust for power, and of expensive items as status symbols.
How to unpack the evaluative notions of ‘unfair’ and ‘excessive’ involved in the analysis of greed? A sufficient condition for a share being unfair and excessive may be:
A share which is more than 8 times the Canadian 2009 per capita average (median or mean) or 20 times the global per capita average, and more than 4 times what is needed for a healthy, enriched (sic) lifestyle (shelter, sanitation, health care, food, leisure, some savings, education, security of person and property, opportunities for artistic, intellectual, spiritual, moral, athletic development).
According to the analysis of greed it is not just business executives who are greedy. Entertainment and sports stars, royalty, dictators, celebrities, heiresses, many lawyers, doctors, dentists, architects, professors, senior administrators, successful writers and artists, and lottery winners also qualify as greedy. In 2009 trying to acquire or retain a $3m home, yacht, several luxury holidays per year, etc. counts as greed. ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’ could be re-titled ‘Lifestyles of the Greedy’. In 2009 anyone earning more than $150,000 US per year or having assets totaling more than $3m without giving away the surplus to worthy causes (e.g. arts/sports foundations, scholarships for the poor, medical research) is greedy.
Most ordinary people are greedy in the sense that they aspire to an unfair, excessive share of wealth, and try to gain such a share given the chance. How many of us if we won $5m in a lottery would give away half to very worthy causes? Probably most people think they deserve more than the average. Most would like to have more than what they know in their hearts to be a fair share and one sufficient for a good life. Being greedy is compatible with having a sincere desire to help the poor and disadvantaged, protect the environment, support charities and the arts, being courteous, promoting liberal causes, even being a Marxist or socialist, and so on. Greed is distinct from criminal flaws – theft, torture, murder, assault. It fits in with more widespread, ordinary human failings – envy, anger, gluttony, decadence, debauchery, deceit, self-deception, hypocrisy, rationalization, selfishness, snobbery, lust, sloth, complacency, arrogance, dogmatism, bigotry, miserliness.
Does this mean that we should simply accept that greed is inevitable and an important factor in motivating artistic, intellectual, and business achievement, and bringing about a high standard of living and quality of life? No. Although we are to some extent biologically programmed to be greedy (also envious, violent, selfish, dogmatic, etc.), we are also programmed to be sharing, nurturing, considerate. We can raise children to think more of the well-being of others, and inner artistic, spiritual, intellectual development and attainment, rather than focus on success as becoming rich or famous and having a glamorous partner. This would be beneficial for individuals and society. We don’t need to achieve meaning and validation by being rich or famous (or having lots of kids, or asserting our own religion/ideology/lifestyle as supreme – the definite truth).
If you reflect calmly and dispassionately (engage in open critical thinking) on the notion of greed and human behaviour you come to some conclusions which most people will find upsetting/disturbing/threatening to underlying beliefs they have evolved as coping, defence mechanisms to make their world and themselves seem more congenial. Almost all human beings are potentially greedy, and the top 40% in affluent countries like Canada in 2009 are actually greedy. It is healthier to acknowledge unpleasant aspects of human nature (particularly one’s own nature) than to be in denial.
Wanting and trying to obtain or maintain a share of some benefit (e.g. income, sick leave, housing, job security, inheritance) for oneself (or family, professional association, or class) which is unfair and unnecessary for leading a good life (when looked at fairly reasonably, dispassionately, objectively).
Willingness to disregard or downplay the legitimate claims of others in order to gain or maintain the excessive share.
Willingness to use power (e.g. coercion, political influence, strikes, restrictive practices, not necessarily physical violence) and misrepresentation (not necessarily illegal or criminal acts) to gain or maintain the excessive share.
‘Ann wants an unfair, excessive share but is not greedy’* verges on the contradictory.
According to this analysis there is a selfish/self-centred/self-seeking aspect to greed. ‘Andrew is greedy but not selfish’* is semantically odd. There is also a materialistic aspect to greed. ‘Alice is greedy but not particularly interested in wealth, income, luxuries, her own pleasure or status, material comforts, or possessions’* is also semantically odd. Conceivably, all members of a community might pursue material wealth excessively yet share fairly equitably (not the same as equally) and safeguard the environment and animal rights. We might still call such a community greedy rather than just materialistic. Usually, though, greed is semantically (cf. merely empirically/causally) associated with seeking to gain or maintain an undue share for oneself (own family, class, etc.) at the expense of others. Greed may be characterized as excessive materialism combined with disregard for the material well-being of others. Think of situations where we tell children, ‘Don’t be greedy’.
It is sometimes claimed there is a kind of ‘greed’ which enriches others rather than deprives them. Thus, suppose an entrepreneur introduces a technological innovation which helps raise the standard of living of the whole community. The entrepreneur may take for himself a large,excessive portion of the increase in wealth yet still the others are significantly better off than before. But although the entrepreneur may be entitled to a larger share than average it does not follow that he is entitled to take most of the increase for himself. For one thing, others are involved in the production of increased wealth – the inventor, factory manager, factory workers, etc. For another, the average hard-working member of the society may still be short of some basics. Think of a sports or movie star getting $1m for promoting a product while factory workers who make the product are better off by 50 cents an hour.
Sometimes a greedy person knows he is taking an unfair, excessive share but he doesn’t care. He may excuse himself by saying, ‘It’s a dog-eat-dog world…the weak go to the wall… you have to look out for number one…’ etc. Sometimes a person may be unaware that he is being greedy – he takes his excessive, unfair share for granted, and being pampered or spoiled doesn’t see that it is unfair and beyond what is needful. Often, though, a person has some awareness that he is being greedy but he suppresses or represses this awareness because he accepts that greed is an ignoble, undesirable quality and finds it threatening to his view of himself and the world to admit that this mean quality is present in himself and those he likes and admires.
Greed is typically directed at obtaining or maintaining more income, wealth, pleasure, material goods, luxuries for oneself or family – a better house, car, restaurants, holidays, travel, fancy clothes, boat, better health care and education for the kids, etc. However, the motive for, or even the focus of, greed may not be financial gain, wealth, and all the comforts, pleasures, luxuries, treats, conveniences, and security that money can buy. Rather, the underlying greed may be for status, recognition, power, or control. Thus we speak of the lust for power, and of expensive items as status symbols.
How to unpack the evaluative notions of ‘unfair’ and ‘excessive’ involved in the analysis of greed? A sufficient condition for a share being unfair and excessive may be:
A share which is more than 8 times the Canadian 2009 per capita average (median or mean) or 20 times the global per capita average, and more than 4 times what is needed for a healthy, enriched (sic) lifestyle (shelter, sanitation, health care, food, leisure, some savings, education, security of person and property, opportunities for artistic, intellectual, spiritual, moral, athletic development).
According to the analysis of greed it is not just business executives who are greedy. Entertainment and sports stars, royalty, dictators, celebrities, heiresses, many lawyers, doctors, dentists, architects, professors, senior administrators, successful writers and artists, and lottery winners also qualify as greedy. In 2009 trying to acquire or retain a $3m home, yacht, several luxury holidays per year, etc. counts as greed. ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’ could be re-titled ‘Lifestyles of the Greedy’. In 2009 anyone earning more than $150,000 US per year or having assets totaling more than $3m without giving away the surplus to worthy causes (e.g. arts/sports foundations, scholarships for the poor, medical research) is greedy.
Most ordinary people are greedy in the sense that they aspire to an unfair, excessive share of wealth, and try to gain such a share given the chance. How many of us if we won $5m in a lottery would give away half to very worthy causes? Probably most people think they deserve more than the average. Most would like to have more than what they know in their hearts to be a fair share and one sufficient for a good life. Being greedy is compatible with having a sincere desire to help the poor and disadvantaged, protect the environment, support charities and the arts, being courteous, promoting liberal causes, even being a Marxist or socialist, and so on. Greed is distinct from criminal flaws – theft, torture, murder, assault. It fits in with more widespread, ordinary human failings – envy, anger, gluttony, decadence, debauchery, deceit, self-deception, hypocrisy, rationalization, selfishness, snobbery, lust, sloth, complacency, arrogance, dogmatism, bigotry, miserliness.
Does this mean that we should simply accept that greed is inevitable and an important factor in motivating artistic, intellectual, and business achievement, and bringing about a high standard of living and quality of life? No. Although we are to some extent biologically programmed to be greedy (also envious, violent, selfish, dogmatic, etc.), we are also programmed to be sharing, nurturing, considerate. We can raise children to think more of the well-being of others, and inner artistic, spiritual, intellectual development and attainment, rather than focus on success as becoming rich or famous and having a glamorous partner. This would be beneficial for individuals and society. We don’t need to achieve meaning and validation by being rich or famous (or having lots of kids, or asserting our own religion/ideology/lifestyle as supreme – the definite truth).
If you reflect calmly and dispassionately (engage in open critical thinking) on the notion of greed and human behaviour you come to some conclusions which most people will find upsetting/disturbing/threatening to underlying beliefs they have evolved as coping, defence mechanisms to make their world and themselves seem more congenial. Almost all human beings are potentially greedy, and the top 40% in affluent countries like Canada in 2009 are actually greedy. It is healthier to acknowledge unpleasant aspects of human nature (particularly one’s own nature) than to be in denial.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Democracy
Being democratic is widely regarded as a desirable, good quality in government, organizations, making rules, deciding goals and policies. Because of this ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’ have come to have an approbative, commendatory quality as part of their meaning. They are conventionally partly used to express or indicate approval, to commend or praise. ‘Undemocratic’ conventionally is often derogatory, pejorative, expressing or indicating disapproval. It is used in part to deprecate, censure, denigrate, disparage, chide, put down, etc. ‘That’s not democratic’ is often like saying ‘That’s not fair’. ‘Democratic’ is perhaps not so evaluative in meaning as ‘dictatorial’, ‘fascist’, ‘repressive’, ‘elitist’, ‘brutal’, etc.
The descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’ and its cognates, though, is (like that of many terms in philosophy, social theory, politics, art, literary theory, religion, etc.) rather woolly or nebulous in common (and often specialist!) use. In ordinary, standard use ‘democracy’ is not used to pick out (not clearly, closely tied to) a specific set of clearly definable (in principle intersubjectively verifiable and falsifiable) characteristics or features. (Cf. ‘20th wedding anniversary party’, “university’, ‘by-election’.) Rather ‘democracy’ is used to loosely indicate a feature (or features) in a certain range which is not clearly specified. It seems that speakers/writers do not have some specific, definite property or kind of thing clearly in mind when they (albeit correctly) use ‘democracy’. Speakers/users are unable to pick out confidently what would be democratic and what not, or to specify what are verifiable democratic-making characteristics – criteria, truth/application conditions.
Descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’. The underlying, loose idea behind ‘democratic’ is something like : a government, business, corporation, movement, non-profit society, community association etc. such that ordinary people/all members have a real say in running the organization as opposed to its being run by an elite or privileged group, and /or such that it is run for the real benefit of ordinary/all members not for the benefit of an elite or privileged group. Democracy is contrasted with government by church (theocracy), hereditary monarch or chief, aristocracy, big business, the military, dictatorship, the upper classes.
Sharpening the meaning. Specific criteria might be listed to give clearer, sharper definition to ‘democracy’.
Freedom to form different, opposing, rival political parties which the government may deem are not in the best public interest (even some which seek to abolish certain freedoms or rights).
Freedom to publicly criticize the government and laws.
Some media not directly controlled by the government.
Toleration of different values, belief systems, disagreement about priorities.
Freedom of access to information about government spending and policies.
Freedom to vote and run for office (political, judicial, police, military, civil service) regardless of class, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation.
Safeguards for keeping patronage appointments, nepotism, favoritism, and pork barreling to a minimum, e.g. strict rules for government tendering, and for hiring in the civil service and schools and universities; membership of some boards determined by lot rather than appointment.
Mechanism to allow for peaceful change of government.
The ultimate basis of political power lies in the expressed consent of the majority of citizens.
Minorities have certain rights.
Opportunities for the disadvantaged (females, poor, ethnic minorities) to have higher education and rise to office and good jobs in the professions, academia, etc.
There is something semantically odd about saying ‘A is a democracy’, or the equivalent in another language, where A lacks 2 or more of the preceding characteristics.
Some communist and totalitarian countries calling themselves democratic are not democratic according to the analysis given. We might speak of communist, Marxist, totalitarian, or religious democracy versus liberal democracy (without the sneer word ‘bourgeois’). A communist (or religious) supposed democratic ideology holds that there are two classes of people : those who have seen the definite truth about God’s law, social reality, ultimate reality, or the historical process and those who have not. Those who do not accept the truth represented by the ‘correct’ religious/political party are corrupt, unenlightened and should be excluded from political power and input. (Notice the similarity here between totalitarian democrats and some politically correct liberal democrats.) Those to be excluded may be peasants, landlords, capitalists, bourgeois liberals, western decadents, atheists, non-members of the ‘correct’ party, or those who make remarks deemed to be damaging or offensive to the disadvantaged or minorities. Furthermore, on this view, dictatorship of the ruling party, proletariat, or religion is not undemocratic because it in fact represents the true underlying free will of each individual in so far as this is not perverted.
Democracy is associated with egalitarianism : the idea that people are in some way of equal value or worth and should have equal opportunity even though there are differences in ability and character.
In a democratic association all members have input into what qualifications are required for membership and for holding a particular rank. In this respect many professional associations and trade unions are democratic whereas the Catholic Church is not. In a democratic country it might be that all people with relevant skills and expertise, not just association members, should have input into criteria for membership in an association or union and pay scales in so far as these have a monopoly on certain jobs (frequently paid for by the general taxpayer).
Democracy (either liberal or totalitarian) is compatible with distinctions of rank and with some degree of meritocracy. Thus, to impose a test for voting or holding office of basic literacy, cultural, historical, and political knowledge might be deemed ‘undemocratic’ in a loose sense but it is not so according to the more precise analysis given. What matters for democracy in the precise sense is equality of opportunity, open critical thinking, concern for the well-being and development of others especially those with a poor start in life, and respect for individual liberty/autonomy – allowing for disagreement, differences of opinion. Democracy in the precise sense does not entail a philosophy of idealizing or sentimentalizing the poor, non-achievers, criminals, drug addicts, etc.
The descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’ and its cognates, though, is (like that of many terms in philosophy, social theory, politics, art, literary theory, religion, etc.) rather woolly or nebulous in common (and often specialist!) use. In ordinary, standard use ‘democracy’ is not used to pick out (not clearly, closely tied to) a specific set of clearly definable (in principle intersubjectively verifiable and falsifiable) characteristics or features. (Cf. ‘20th wedding anniversary party’, “university’, ‘by-election’.) Rather ‘democracy’ is used to loosely indicate a feature (or features) in a certain range which is not clearly specified. It seems that speakers/writers do not have some specific, definite property or kind of thing clearly in mind when they (albeit correctly) use ‘democracy’. Speakers/users are unable to pick out confidently what would be democratic and what not, or to specify what are verifiable democratic-making characteristics – criteria, truth/application conditions.
Descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’. The underlying, loose idea behind ‘democratic’ is something like : a government, business, corporation, movement, non-profit society, community association etc. such that ordinary people/all members have a real say in running the organization as opposed to its being run by an elite or privileged group, and /or such that it is run for the real benefit of ordinary/all members not for the benefit of an elite or privileged group. Democracy is contrasted with government by church (theocracy), hereditary monarch or chief, aristocracy, big business, the military, dictatorship, the upper classes.
Sharpening the meaning. Specific criteria might be listed to give clearer, sharper definition to ‘democracy’.
Freedom to form different, opposing, rival political parties which the government may deem are not in the best public interest (even some which seek to abolish certain freedoms or rights).
Freedom to publicly criticize the government and laws.
Some media not directly controlled by the government.
Toleration of different values, belief systems, disagreement about priorities.
Freedom of access to information about government spending and policies.
Freedom to vote and run for office (political, judicial, police, military, civil service) regardless of class, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation.
Safeguards for keeping patronage appointments, nepotism, favoritism, and pork barreling to a minimum, e.g. strict rules for government tendering, and for hiring in the civil service and schools and universities; membership of some boards determined by lot rather than appointment.
Mechanism to allow for peaceful change of government.
The ultimate basis of political power lies in the expressed consent of the majority of citizens.
Minorities have certain rights.
Opportunities for the disadvantaged (females, poor, ethnic minorities) to have higher education and rise to office and good jobs in the professions, academia, etc.
There is something semantically odd about saying ‘A is a democracy’, or the equivalent in another language, where A lacks 2 or more of the preceding characteristics.
Some communist and totalitarian countries calling themselves democratic are not democratic according to the analysis given. We might speak of communist, Marxist, totalitarian, or religious democracy versus liberal democracy (without the sneer word ‘bourgeois’). A communist (or religious) supposed democratic ideology holds that there are two classes of people : those who have seen the definite truth about God’s law, social reality, ultimate reality, or the historical process and those who have not. Those who do not accept the truth represented by the ‘correct’ religious/political party are corrupt, unenlightened and should be excluded from political power and input. (Notice the similarity here between totalitarian democrats and some politically correct liberal democrats.) Those to be excluded may be peasants, landlords, capitalists, bourgeois liberals, western decadents, atheists, non-members of the ‘correct’ party, or those who make remarks deemed to be damaging or offensive to the disadvantaged or minorities. Furthermore, on this view, dictatorship of the ruling party, proletariat, or religion is not undemocratic because it in fact represents the true underlying free will of each individual in so far as this is not perverted.
Democracy is associated with egalitarianism : the idea that people are in some way of equal value or worth and should have equal opportunity even though there are differences in ability and character.
In a democratic association all members have input into what qualifications are required for membership and for holding a particular rank. In this respect many professional associations and trade unions are democratic whereas the Catholic Church is not. In a democratic country it might be that all people with relevant skills and expertise, not just association members, should have input into criteria for membership in an association or union and pay scales in so far as these have a monopoly on certain jobs (frequently paid for by the general taxpayer).
Democracy (either liberal or totalitarian) is compatible with distinctions of rank and with some degree of meritocracy. Thus, to impose a test for voting or holding office of basic literacy, cultural, historical, and political knowledge might be deemed ‘undemocratic’ in a loose sense but it is not so according to the more precise analysis given. What matters for democracy in the precise sense is equality of opportunity, open critical thinking, concern for the well-being and development of others especially those with a poor start in life, and respect for individual liberty/autonomy – allowing for disagreement, differences of opinion. Democracy in the precise sense does not entail a philosophy of idealizing or sentimentalizing the poor, non-achievers, criminals, drug addicts, etc.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Rule of Law
It is difficult for a community (or social group, e.g., non-profit society, religious group, school, sports club, housing co-op) of only 100 fairly homogeneous people to function without rules and regulations. Sometimes there will be unanimous support for a rule. Sometimes an individual member who supports the rule will break it when he thinks following the rule in a particular case is unduly detrimental to his benefit. (Sincerely supporting a rule means being willing to follow it even when so doing involves some inconvenience or loss of benefit.) Sometimes an individual will follow a rule because it has been adopted by the community (or social group) of which he is a member even though he personally finds the rule not the most fair or reasonable of alternatives. The notion of a community rule implies some sort of penalty for those who violate it, e.g., a fine, loss of privileges, suspension, expulsion, being assigned to unpleasant chores.
Each rule may require specific assent by all members (or a majority) of the community, or (some) rules may be decided by a ruling body (and perhaps be put to the general membership for ratification). Again, penalties for infringement of rules may be decided by all (or a majority) of the community or by a ruling body.
Where a state, country, nation, or whole society is concerned we speak of laws rather than rules. When a community has over 1000 members it becomes impractical to require unanimous consent of all members (consensus) for each rule or penalty. With communities over 50,000 it becomes impractical to require specific assent of the majority to each and every rule and related penalty. In large, complex societies rule, i.e., law (and policy) making becomes invested in a small portion of members, i.e., a ruling body, legislature, or government. (The membership may change but the ruling institutions stay the same.) Sometimes the law-making body is at arm’s length from the executive or government. Along with a legislature or government there is usually a somewhat separate judiciary for examining alleged violations of laws, and a police force for enforcing the laws.
Important questions arise. When does a law-making body have the moral and rational right to impose laws and penalties? When is its law-making status legitimate, reasonable, justifiable? Are there kinds of activity which it is unfair or unreasonable to legislate? Under what conditions, if any, is it fair or reasonable for a citizen to not abide by the law – is a citizen sometimes morally or rationally justified in disobeying a law made by a de jure government or legislature?
In a large, post-industrial, pluralistic, multicultural society there are many areas where some fairly loyal, law-abiding citizens feel strongly that existing or proposed legislation by a more or less legitimate government and legislature is not morally or rationally justifiable, e.g., gun control, same sex marriage, recreational drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, immigration, capital punishment, abortion, upper limits on income, wealth, and inheritance, disincentives to procreate, discouragement of the private automobile. Part of living and maturity is learning to accept some difference and disagreement in basic values, priorities, and beliefs (and to yield to the wishes of the majority). You can’t expect everyone else or the majority to share your particular convictions; what is meaningful, enlightened, profound, God’s truth to you may not be so to someone else; someone is not necessarily stupid, ignorant, or corrupt because he doesn’t agree with you; others have their blocks, hang-ups, emotional investment, blind spots, triggers, dark side but then so do you; your convictions may be just as much the product of your flawed, human psychology (projections, fears, defence mechanisms, rationalizations, prejudices, unquestioned, unexamined presuppositions) as others’ convictions seem to you the product of their flawed nature. No use claiming your convictions come direct from God. How do you know this claim is not itself a warped belief (perhaps sent by the Devil!) Also, others make the same claim about their different convictions.
Is the government/legislature legitimate? Some considerations. Can citizens of different religions, political affiliation, class, gender, race, ethnicity (except minors and perhaps those serving time for basic crimes, e.g. robbery, assault, fraud, of which they were convicted with due process) run for political office? Can they become members of the judiciary, police force, army, civil service? Can all citizens (except perhaps minors and certain criminals) vote? Is public criticism of the government/legislature, laws and legal system allowed? Is there a peaceful mechanism for changing the government/legislature? Is citizenship (voting) open to all contributing long-term residents, e.g. those working and paying taxes in the country for 2 years or more?
Are there activities beyond the legitimate scope of legislation (criminal as opposed to regulatory)? Those between consenting adults in private which do not harm a minor?
When might civil disobedience be justified? Breaking a law to save a life or prevent serious injury? Willingness to pay some penalty for breaking the law. Not concealing your violation. That you strongly and consistently disagree with the law (perhaps believing it is against the higher law of God) is not sufficient, e.g. someone who is opposed to photo radar, speed limits, or gun control, not just for himself but in general.
Imposing laws on those who do not want them. Some individuals are opposed to legislation imposing speed limits, gun control, banning spousal or child assault or abuse, or offering sex education or comparative religious studies in school. The belief is that these areas should be left to individual discretion (or the family) not subject to state interference or control. However, society (the state) has an obligation to protect the innocent and to ensure that liberties for certain individuals do not negate the basic liberties of others. Interestingly, many who oppose state encroachment on individual liberty in some areas are strongly in favour of it in others, e.g. recreational drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, assisted euthanasia.
Imposing taxes for services on those who do not want the service, e.g. health care, schools, social assistance, parks, sports facilities, hospitals, social services, roads, military, police force, judiciary, prison system, old age pension, drug and alcohol control, food inspection, welfare, unemployment benefits, water, sewers, garbage collection, recycling, fire department, public transit. Again, society has an obligation to ensure that all children have opportunities for education, care, a decent quality of life, and access to good jobs. A child’s chance in life should not depend largely on parents’ or grandparents’ wealth whether acquired through good luck, connexions, hard work, or shady dealings. A child should not be unduly penalized for having negligent, abusive, or thriftless parents. Notice that the justification for imposing taxes for a community service does not of itself entail that the service should have a public rather than private provider.
Society is morally and rationally entitled to take from the rich (without their explicit consent) in order to help the children of the poor. Parents naturally try to secure an unfair advantage for their own children. This does not mean they have a moral right to do so.
Ideally, perhaps, those independent, self-sufficient individuals who never use a public benefit should get a tax refund. In practice, it is difficult to say that an individual does not benefit from some public amenities, e.g. military, police force, parks, roads, customs, transportation inspection.
Romantic individualism – childish sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, an exaggerated sense of the superiority of one’s own talents, insights, opinions, tastes, values, and beliefs – must be tempered by the recognition that there are billions of us on a planet with finite resources. I am not more wonderful, hard working, ill-treated, highly qualified, talented, or deserving than millions of others. There is no reason why my community, country, or the world should adopt my opinions or give me special recognition or status. Indeed, in world terms perhaps I already receive more than a fair share.
Each rule may require specific assent by all members (or a majority) of the community, or (some) rules may be decided by a ruling body (and perhaps be put to the general membership for ratification). Again, penalties for infringement of rules may be decided by all (or a majority) of the community or by a ruling body.
Where a state, country, nation, or whole society is concerned we speak of laws rather than rules. When a community has over 1000 members it becomes impractical to require unanimous consent of all members (consensus) for each rule or penalty. With communities over 50,000 it becomes impractical to require specific assent of the majority to each and every rule and related penalty. In large, complex societies rule, i.e., law (and policy) making becomes invested in a small portion of members, i.e., a ruling body, legislature, or government. (The membership may change but the ruling institutions stay the same.) Sometimes the law-making body is at arm’s length from the executive or government. Along with a legislature or government there is usually a somewhat separate judiciary for examining alleged violations of laws, and a police force for enforcing the laws.
Important questions arise. When does a law-making body have the moral and rational right to impose laws and penalties? When is its law-making status legitimate, reasonable, justifiable? Are there kinds of activity which it is unfair or unreasonable to legislate? Under what conditions, if any, is it fair or reasonable for a citizen to not abide by the law – is a citizen sometimes morally or rationally justified in disobeying a law made by a de jure government or legislature?
In a large, post-industrial, pluralistic, multicultural society there are many areas where some fairly loyal, law-abiding citizens feel strongly that existing or proposed legislation by a more or less legitimate government and legislature is not morally or rationally justifiable, e.g., gun control, same sex marriage, recreational drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, immigration, capital punishment, abortion, upper limits on income, wealth, and inheritance, disincentives to procreate, discouragement of the private automobile. Part of living and maturity is learning to accept some difference and disagreement in basic values, priorities, and beliefs (and to yield to the wishes of the majority). You can’t expect everyone else or the majority to share your particular convictions; what is meaningful, enlightened, profound, God’s truth to you may not be so to someone else; someone is not necessarily stupid, ignorant, or corrupt because he doesn’t agree with you; others have their blocks, hang-ups, emotional investment, blind spots, triggers, dark side but then so do you; your convictions may be just as much the product of your flawed, human psychology (projections, fears, defence mechanisms, rationalizations, prejudices, unquestioned, unexamined presuppositions) as others’ convictions seem to you the product of their flawed nature. No use claiming your convictions come direct from God. How do you know this claim is not itself a warped belief (perhaps sent by the Devil!) Also, others make the same claim about their different convictions.
Is the government/legislature legitimate? Some considerations. Can citizens of different religions, political affiliation, class, gender, race, ethnicity (except minors and perhaps those serving time for basic crimes, e.g. robbery, assault, fraud, of which they were convicted with due process) run for political office? Can they become members of the judiciary, police force, army, civil service? Can all citizens (except perhaps minors and certain criminals) vote? Is public criticism of the government/legislature, laws and legal system allowed? Is there a peaceful mechanism for changing the government/legislature? Is citizenship (voting) open to all contributing long-term residents, e.g. those working and paying taxes in the country for 2 years or more?
Are there activities beyond the legitimate scope of legislation (criminal as opposed to regulatory)? Those between consenting adults in private which do not harm a minor?
When might civil disobedience be justified? Breaking a law to save a life or prevent serious injury? Willingness to pay some penalty for breaking the law. Not concealing your violation. That you strongly and consistently disagree with the law (perhaps believing it is against the higher law of God) is not sufficient, e.g. someone who is opposed to photo radar, speed limits, or gun control, not just for himself but in general.
Imposing laws on those who do not want them. Some individuals are opposed to legislation imposing speed limits, gun control, banning spousal or child assault or abuse, or offering sex education or comparative religious studies in school. The belief is that these areas should be left to individual discretion (or the family) not subject to state interference or control. However, society (the state) has an obligation to protect the innocent and to ensure that liberties for certain individuals do not negate the basic liberties of others. Interestingly, many who oppose state encroachment on individual liberty in some areas are strongly in favour of it in others, e.g. recreational drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, assisted euthanasia.
Imposing taxes for services on those who do not want the service, e.g. health care, schools, social assistance, parks, sports facilities, hospitals, social services, roads, military, police force, judiciary, prison system, old age pension, drug and alcohol control, food inspection, welfare, unemployment benefits, water, sewers, garbage collection, recycling, fire department, public transit. Again, society has an obligation to ensure that all children have opportunities for education, care, a decent quality of life, and access to good jobs. A child’s chance in life should not depend largely on parents’ or grandparents’ wealth whether acquired through good luck, connexions, hard work, or shady dealings. A child should not be unduly penalized for having negligent, abusive, or thriftless parents. Notice that the justification for imposing taxes for a community service does not of itself entail that the service should have a public rather than private provider.
Society is morally and rationally entitled to take from the rich (without their explicit consent) in order to help the children of the poor. Parents naturally try to secure an unfair advantage for their own children. This does not mean they have a moral right to do so.
Ideally, perhaps, those independent, self-sufficient individuals who never use a public benefit should get a tax refund. In practice, it is difficult to say that an individual does not benefit from some public amenities, e.g. military, police force, parks, roads, customs, transportation inspection.
Romantic individualism – childish sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, an exaggerated sense of the superiority of one’s own talents, insights, opinions, tastes, values, and beliefs – must be tempered by the recognition that there are billions of us on a planet with finite resources. I am not more wonderful, hard working, ill-treated, highly qualified, talented, or deserving than millions of others. There is no reason why my community, country, or the world should adopt my opinions or give me special recognition or status. Indeed, in world terms perhaps I already receive more than a fair share.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Nature and Extent of Individual Responsibility
1.
Is there Freewill? We call some people and acts responsible and others irresponsible. We say people are responsible for certain tasks because of their job or position e.g. being a parent. Again, we blame people for certain acts or omissions, hold them accountable, culpable. But, it might be claimed, a person’s choices, acts, temperament, personality are the natural outcome of his genes, parental, peer, and social influences, and possibly trauma and pathogens – illness. The human mind in its choices and will cannot transcend causality concerning natural phenomena.
Individuals make choices and perform acts which seem free in that they are voluntary (not the result of external or internal compulsion, or accident) and made with awareness. But perhaps choices (and acts) which seem free because voluntary and done with awareness are at a deeper physiological, psychological (or psychoanalytic) brain/mind level not free because they are fully accounted for by scientific natural laws concerning brain or psychic processes and prior brain or psychic states. That is, the human will is not free because it is entirely part of nature and entirely governed by natural laws. There is no mysterious entity – the mind or soul – standing outside natural causal processes which directs or informs the will (choices).
The more we know about the brain and psychology the less plausible it seems that voluntary, aware choices and acts are directed and controlled by a self which stands outside the causal chain. (That the causal chain is ultimately quantum mechanistic rather than Newtonian/Cartesian does not matter.) The notion of the self as uncaused, not naturally determined, controlling agent seems to dissolve under scientific scrutiny of choices and actions. Choices, sensations, desires, beliefs, feelings, values are just as much part of the natural causal world as electromagnetism, chemical reactions, sunsets, rainbows, coal, cheese, flowers, birds, insects, reptiles, bacteria, and cancer cells. That humans have (or do not have) freewill seems to be an empirical claim (though somewhat nebulous/woolly) and the evidence seems against it.
2
Is there individual responsibility without freewill? Even if freewill is an illusion (when we act voluntarily with awareness we don’t feel compelled) is there still some sense in which an individual bears some responsibility for his own choices, actions, behavior, and hence his own situation? It is difficult to see how society could function if we didn’t hold people in some degree responsible for their voluntary, aware (though perhaps not fully aware) choices and actions, e.g. ‘It’s not my fault I went to the pub instead of staying home and doing my chores and assignments’. But isn’t individual, personal responsibility more than a convenient or necessary fiction or myth? Can one legitimately, reasonably just blame parents, genes, society, big business, Western imperialism, etc. for one’s choices and actions or one’s poor situation or bad behaviour (even if one was to some extent disadvantaged, abused, or neglected)?
Is it justifiable for an individual to blame his situation, poor choices, lack of self-discipline, selfishness, lack of concern for others, greed, neuroses, fixations, etc. on his genes, parenting, society, or relatively poor start in life? When should excuses for one’s bad behaviour or blaming others for one’s relatively poor situation stop? When does blaming others for one’s own (or one’s group’s) relative poverty, lack of achievement, negative behaviours become unreasonable/unjustifiable. At what point do false sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, cult of victimhood, scapegoating, or even laziness come into play? When is your start in life or social situation so bad that you don’t really have a chance? When is belonging to a so-called visible minority or disadvantaged group or past injustices no longer an excuse? To what extent do poorer cultures or societies bear responsibility for their condition?
How much is the average individual responsible for environmental destruction, war, social injustice rather than say government, big business, capitalism, Western imperialism? How much is the dark, greedy, selfish side in each of us not just the system?
3
Psychological determinants of choice and behaviour. To what extent can an individual modify his own behaviours, responses, emotions, desires? What determines whether an individual will try to modify his behaviors, etc. and persist in the effort? Why do some people become stuck in self or other harming or unproductive, limiting behaviours? Why do some not bother to take advantage of opportunities which do exist for self-improvement and advancement? Why do some people turn to drugs, alcohol, television, or gambling rather than activities which bring inner enrichment and satisfaction such as art, music, literature, dance, athletics, sport, meditation, communing with nature, learning another language, community service? Why do even some artists, writers, or athletes turn to drugs or alcohol, or commit suicide? Is it : genes ; inadequate training in interpersonal skills, self-discipline, organization, realistic expectations, accepting unpleasantness and unfairness as part of life, dealing with upsetting feelings ; lack of love, neglect, or abuse ; poverty?
Is there Freewill? We call some people and acts responsible and others irresponsible. We say people are responsible for certain tasks because of their job or position e.g. being a parent. Again, we blame people for certain acts or omissions, hold them accountable, culpable. But, it might be claimed, a person’s choices, acts, temperament, personality are the natural outcome of his genes, parental, peer, and social influences, and possibly trauma and pathogens – illness. The human mind in its choices and will cannot transcend causality concerning natural phenomena.
Individuals make choices and perform acts which seem free in that they are voluntary (not the result of external or internal compulsion, or accident) and made with awareness. But perhaps choices (and acts) which seem free because voluntary and done with awareness are at a deeper physiological, psychological (or psychoanalytic) brain/mind level not free because they are fully accounted for by scientific natural laws concerning brain or psychic processes and prior brain or psychic states. That is, the human will is not free because it is entirely part of nature and entirely governed by natural laws. There is no mysterious entity – the mind or soul – standing outside natural causal processes which directs or informs the will (choices).
The more we know about the brain and psychology the less plausible it seems that voluntary, aware choices and acts are directed and controlled by a self which stands outside the causal chain. (That the causal chain is ultimately quantum mechanistic rather than Newtonian/Cartesian does not matter.) The notion of the self as uncaused, not naturally determined, controlling agent seems to dissolve under scientific scrutiny of choices and actions. Choices, sensations, desires, beliefs, feelings, values are just as much part of the natural causal world as electromagnetism, chemical reactions, sunsets, rainbows, coal, cheese, flowers, birds, insects, reptiles, bacteria, and cancer cells. That humans have (or do not have) freewill seems to be an empirical claim (though somewhat nebulous/woolly) and the evidence seems against it.
2
Is there individual responsibility without freewill? Even if freewill is an illusion (when we act voluntarily with awareness we don’t feel compelled) is there still some sense in which an individual bears some responsibility for his own choices, actions, behavior, and hence his own situation? It is difficult to see how society could function if we didn’t hold people in some degree responsible for their voluntary, aware (though perhaps not fully aware) choices and actions, e.g. ‘It’s not my fault I went to the pub instead of staying home and doing my chores and assignments’. But isn’t individual, personal responsibility more than a convenient or necessary fiction or myth? Can one legitimately, reasonably just blame parents, genes, society, big business, Western imperialism, etc. for one’s choices and actions or one’s poor situation or bad behaviour (even if one was to some extent disadvantaged, abused, or neglected)?
Is it justifiable for an individual to blame his situation, poor choices, lack of self-discipline, selfishness, lack of concern for others, greed, neuroses, fixations, etc. on his genes, parenting, society, or relatively poor start in life? When should excuses for one’s bad behaviour or blaming others for one’s relatively poor situation stop? When does blaming others for one’s own (or one’s group’s) relative poverty, lack of achievement, negative behaviours become unreasonable/unjustifiable. At what point do false sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, cult of victimhood, scapegoating, or even laziness come into play? When is your start in life or social situation so bad that you don’t really have a chance? When is belonging to a so-called visible minority or disadvantaged group or past injustices no longer an excuse? To what extent do poorer cultures or societies bear responsibility for their condition?
How much is the average individual responsible for environmental destruction, war, social injustice rather than say government, big business, capitalism, Western imperialism? How much is the dark, greedy, selfish side in each of us not just the system?
3
Psychological determinants of choice and behaviour. To what extent can an individual modify his own behaviours, responses, emotions, desires? What determines whether an individual will try to modify his behaviors, etc. and persist in the effort? Why do some people become stuck in self or other harming or unproductive, limiting behaviours? Why do some not bother to take advantage of opportunities which do exist for self-improvement and advancement? Why do some people turn to drugs, alcohol, television, or gambling rather than activities which bring inner enrichment and satisfaction such as art, music, literature, dance, athletics, sport, meditation, communing with nature, learning another language, community service? Why do even some artists, writers, or athletes turn to drugs or alcohol, or commit suicide? Is it : genes ; inadequate training in interpersonal skills, self-discipline, organization, realistic expectations, accepting unpleasantness and unfairness as part of life, dealing with upsetting feelings ; lack of love, neglect, or abuse ; poverty?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Cycling and Philosophy. Meeting.
Cycling and Philosophy. Tuesday 11/8/09
Inaugural meeting of Velociraptors – new non-profit society for promoting cycling and friendly open critical thinking on social and philosophical issues. Thursday 20th August 7-9pm. Lounge 1550 Arrow Rd. Free. Notify ahead. Velociraptors will hold regular rides and discussions. Attention is given to physical, mental, emotional, and social well being. Velociraptors emphasises empathetic, clear exploration of different viewpoints, arguments, and objections. Support of cycling for transport, recreation, and athletics is required but you do not need to be a dedicated cycle tourer or racer. More information at: (778) 430-0646, drvelociraptor.blogspot.com, velociraptors.ca, or email davidmercerphd@yahoo.ca
Thanks,
David Mercer, #2 – 1550 Arrow Rd. Victoria BC. V8N 1C6
Inaugural meeting of Velociraptors – new non-profit society for promoting cycling and friendly open critical thinking on social and philosophical issues. Thursday 20th August 7-9pm. Lounge 1550 Arrow Rd. Free. Notify ahead. Velociraptors will hold regular rides and discussions. Attention is given to physical, mental, emotional, and social well being. Velociraptors emphasises empathetic, clear exploration of different viewpoints, arguments, and objections. Support of cycling for transport, recreation, and athletics is required but you do not need to be a dedicated cycle tourer or racer. More information at: (778) 430-0646, drvelociraptor.blogspot.com, velociraptors.ca, or email davidmercerphd@yahoo.ca
Thanks,
David Mercer, #2 – 1550 Arrow Rd. Victoria BC. V8N 1C6
Monday, August 10, 2009
Velociraptors and Cycle Racing
Velociraptors promotes non-elite cycle racing – recreational, club cycle racing – safe, fun cycle racing for all ages and ability levels (including those with disabilities). The emphasis is on participation, increased fitness and well-being, athletic exhilaration and fellowship not on winning or on being the best you possibly can be. Velociraptors cycle racing moves away from ego competition and sports stars.
Many cyclists do not have the time, inclination, or genes to become elite racers. They have other priorities, interests, and commitments besides cycling and cycle racing. Nevertheless, these ‘part-time’ racers get enjoyment and satisfaction from the racing experience and pushing themselves a bit harder than they would on a recreational ride. They want to see how well they can do on a limited amount of time available for training and racing – say 6 to 8 hours per week. For many people athletics or cycle racing is only part of a healthy, rich lifestyle. There are also science, literature, art, music, philosophy, emotional development, spirituality, community service, etc.
If Velociraptors does not cater to ‘serious’, ‘dedicated’ racers why bother with racing at all? One answer is that there is no sharp divide between riding (running or swimming) for general fitness and racing. As you become fit it is natural to time yourself over a given distance. Then you set yourself a personal goal of beating a certain time. You then have a natural desire to see how well you can do in a formal setting relative to others.
Velociraptors cycle racing caters to people who are left out of ‘serious’ competitive racing, e.g. those of moderate ability; those 50 or over. In particular, Velociraptors seeks to attract women over 40 to cycle racing. Cycle racing is a demanding sport but it need be no more demanding than say 10k or half-marathon running.
Velociraptors strongly supports cycle racing being part of schools and college athletic programs. It is likely that the legitimacy of cycling for transport and of cyclists’ rights are enhanced by acceptance of cycle racing as a popular sport – one not requiring immense amounts of training and fanatical dedication. A major factor in gaining acceptance for cycle racing as a sport like running which most can participate in is to have cycle racing recognized as school sport.
Velociraptors strongly supports handicap cycle racing – races in which riders get a start or time allowance based on ability or age.
Velociraptors lobbies for Municipal or Parks authorities to set aside space on playing fields for 500 or 400 metre safe cycle race circuits (grass or similar soft surface), e.g. circuit around 2 side by side soccer pitches. Disused running tracks might also do.
Velociraptors promotes cycle rides which are between races and recreational group rides, viz. reliability rides. In these, people start in groups of about 8 at about 2 minute intervals. Everyone is given a time for the distance say 20k or 40k but there are no prizes for fastest times, no winners as such. Drafting is permitted.
You do not have to race, ever, in order to be a member of Velociraptors. You just have to support non-elite cycle racing. This may take the form of helping out occasionally with a cycle race or reliability ride, e.g. marshalling, assisting with sign-on, setting up course signage, timekeeping, judging finishing order. Helping out with non-elite cycle racing is a form of community service and cycling activism. It helps raise environmental and health awareness too.
Because Velociraptors includes promoting cycle races it must be registered with Cycling BC. This means that Velociraptors members must have a Cycling BC license which gives insurance coverage before they can participate (after an initial trial) in Velociraptors group rides even if they never race.
Many cyclists do not have the time, inclination, or genes to become elite racers. They have other priorities, interests, and commitments besides cycling and cycle racing. Nevertheless, these ‘part-time’ racers get enjoyment and satisfaction from the racing experience and pushing themselves a bit harder than they would on a recreational ride. They want to see how well they can do on a limited amount of time available for training and racing – say 6 to 8 hours per week. For many people athletics or cycle racing is only part of a healthy, rich lifestyle. There are also science, literature, art, music, philosophy, emotional development, spirituality, community service, etc.
If Velociraptors does not cater to ‘serious’, ‘dedicated’ racers why bother with racing at all? One answer is that there is no sharp divide between riding (running or swimming) for general fitness and racing. As you become fit it is natural to time yourself over a given distance. Then you set yourself a personal goal of beating a certain time. You then have a natural desire to see how well you can do in a formal setting relative to others.
Velociraptors cycle racing caters to people who are left out of ‘serious’ competitive racing, e.g. those of moderate ability; those 50 or over. In particular, Velociraptors seeks to attract women over 40 to cycle racing. Cycle racing is a demanding sport but it need be no more demanding than say 10k or half-marathon running.
Velociraptors strongly supports cycle racing being part of schools and college athletic programs. It is likely that the legitimacy of cycling for transport and of cyclists’ rights are enhanced by acceptance of cycle racing as a popular sport – one not requiring immense amounts of training and fanatical dedication. A major factor in gaining acceptance for cycle racing as a sport like running which most can participate in is to have cycle racing recognized as school sport.
Velociraptors strongly supports handicap cycle racing – races in which riders get a start or time allowance based on ability or age.
Velociraptors lobbies for Municipal or Parks authorities to set aside space on playing fields for 500 or 400 metre safe cycle race circuits (grass or similar soft surface), e.g. circuit around 2 side by side soccer pitches. Disused running tracks might also do.
Velociraptors promotes cycle rides which are between races and recreational group rides, viz. reliability rides. In these, people start in groups of about 8 at about 2 minute intervals. Everyone is given a time for the distance say 20k or 40k but there are no prizes for fastest times, no winners as such. Drafting is permitted.
You do not have to race, ever, in order to be a member of Velociraptors. You just have to support non-elite cycle racing. This may take the form of helping out occasionally with a cycle race or reliability ride, e.g. marshalling, assisting with sign-on, setting up course signage, timekeeping, judging finishing order. Helping out with non-elite cycle racing is a form of community service and cycling activism. It helps raise environmental and health awareness too.
Because Velociraptors includes promoting cycle races it must be registered with Cycling BC. This means that Velociraptors members must have a Cycling BC license which gives insurance coverage before they can participate (after an initial trial) in Velociraptors group rides even if they never race.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Velociraptors and Philosophy
Velociraptors Cycling Association www.velociraptors.ca combines support of cycling with support of philosophical exploration. But why combine cycling and philosophy? Why not cycling and music, or cycling and art, literature, science, socialism, vegetarianism, or Buddhism?
Philosophy involves clarifying and questioning core guiding beliefs, values, and presuppositions which many take for granted. Cycling is a physical embodiment of philosophical questioning. By choosing to ride a bike on public roads instead of using motorized transport (or the subway) you are challenging contemporary mainstream views about lifestyle, social and political goals. Arguably, cycling, more than being an artist, musician, poet, runner, atheist, or socialist, shows a personal commitment to an alternative, environmentally friendly, self-sufficient lifestyle. Granted there are affluent cyclists as there are wealthy or well-off artists, writers, atheists, and academic left-wingers or liberals. Many cyclists own cars, property, stocks and bonds. Nevertheless, the act of cycling challenges the cult of the private automobile and thus attacks the heart of consumerism and the pursuit of wealth.
Cycling, perhaps more than any other activity or sport merges practicality – transport, travel – with physical, mental, and social well-being. Cycling offers personal liberation as well as a deeper connexion with nature – being mobile and independent in all weathers and terrains.
Philosophy does not mean just criticizing traditional, right-wing, establishment, fundamentalist positions, or scientific materialism, logical positivism, capitalism, or Western values. Philosophy recognizes that left-wing, politically correct, liberal, anti-logical/rationalist/scientific thinking, postmodern, trendy, deconstructionist, or relativist views may also contain dogmas, biases, confusions, and nebulous, woolly concepts and assertions. Thus Velociraptors welcomes people of different political, religious, and philosophical persuasions from Catholic to atheist, Conservative to Marxist, mystic to sceptic.
Philosophy need not be just an academic exercise or intellectual pursuit. Being willing to open all views to questioning even (perhaps especially) those which are congenial/appealing or distasteful/threatening to oneself does not mean being apolitical or espousing relativism – the doctrine that all views, values, or cultures are equally reasonable or plausible (there are no trans-cultural standards of objectivity). The practice of philosophical clarification, questioning, and exploration may lead to deeper, more balanced values and commitment.
Velociraptors recognizes that disagreement is inevitable in an open society. Disagreement though often upsetting can be enriching. Perhaps civilized, courteous, empathetic life is the art of accepting and respecting disagreement.
Velociraptors is committed to promoting social justice but eschews dogmas about what this consists in and methods for attaining it.
Philosophy involves clarifying and questioning core guiding beliefs, values, and presuppositions which many take for granted. Cycling is a physical embodiment of philosophical questioning. By choosing to ride a bike on public roads instead of using motorized transport (or the subway) you are challenging contemporary mainstream views about lifestyle, social and political goals. Arguably, cycling, more than being an artist, musician, poet, runner, atheist, or socialist, shows a personal commitment to an alternative, environmentally friendly, self-sufficient lifestyle. Granted there are affluent cyclists as there are wealthy or well-off artists, writers, atheists, and academic left-wingers or liberals. Many cyclists own cars, property, stocks and bonds. Nevertheless, the act of cycling challenges the cult of the private automobile and thus attacks the heart of consumerism and the pursuit of wealth.
Cycling, perhaps more than any other activity or sport merges practicality – transport, travel – with physical, mental, and social well-being. Cycling offers personal liberation as well as a deeper connexion with nature – being mobile and independent in all weathers and terrains.
Philosophy does not mean just criticizing traditional, right-wing, establishment, fundamentalist positions, or scientific materialism, logical positivism, capitalism, or Western values. Philosophy recognizes that left-wing, politically correct, liberal, anti-logical/rationalist/scientific thinking, postmodern, trendy, deconstructionist, or relativist views may also contain dogmas, biases, confusions, and nebulous, woolly concepts and assertions. Thus Velociraptors welcomes people of different political, religious, and philosophical persuasions from Catholic to atheist, Conservative to Marxist, mystic to sceptic.
Philosophy need not be just an academic exercise or intellectual pursuit. Being willing to open all views to questioning even (perhaps especially) those which are congenial/appealing or distasteful/threatening to oneself does not mean being apolitical or espousing relativism – the doctrine that all views, values, or cultures are equally reasonable or plausible (there are no trans-cultural standards of objectivity). The practice of philosophical clarification, questioning, and exploration may lead to deeper, more balanced values and commitment.
Velociraptors recognizes that disagreement is inevitable in an open society. Disagreement though often upsetting can be enriching. Perhaps civilized, courteous, empathetic life is the art of accepting and respecting disagreement.
Velociraptors is committed to promoting social justice but eschews dogmas about what this consists in and methods for attaining it.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Race Photos, Results, Duane Martindale.
For the past 3 seasons geneticist Dr. Duane Martindale, a past BCMCA overall champion, VCL overall winner B division, and 50 – 54 record holder Sidney time trial (24’ 01’’), has limited his own racing program in order to provide extensive photographic coverage and to coordinate race results for the BCMCA, Sidney Velo, and the Victoria Cycling League. Duane’s photos are regularly cited in my race reports. They are found at duanebc.com or bcmasterscycling.net. Photos are picked for aesthetic, dramatic, or instructional quality.
In cycle racing position on the bike is all important : be streamlined, powerful, relaxed, flat back, bent arms, fitting smoothly almost flowing over the bike. In order to see what a great time trial (or racing) position looks like go to Duane’s photos of Michael Stoehr Vh. D. (Dr. of Velosophy), Sidney Velo tt June 16th 2009 #40 – 43, May 19th #7 –11. Also study the photos of Emile de Rosnay June 2nd #49 –50, and May 26th #54 – 58. For the acme in aero (yet efficient, not strained) consult pictures of Super aero Don ‘Arrowman’ Gilmore, record holder on 3 BC time trial courses, eg. Sidney tt July 14th #3 – 7. Other models for style : ultra fast Stephen Baird former swimming champion; junior sensation Craig Logan – already 1st/2nd cat at 17; several lovely athletic women, eg. former track star Peggy Labiuk (Maass) – watch for names and pics of others; The Unknown Racer Sidney tt June 23rd #63 – 64. You may never ride as fast as these guys but if you learn to look like them you’ll be cool (and faster than if you didn’t have their style).
For more festive shots of cycle racing see The Chicks, Nanaimo River Road team tt 14th June 2009, #24; also Newton Heights June 3rd Aviawest coach Steve Lund winning with exuberant family support #78 –83.
Duane, a bird watcher, started cycle racing in his 40s after volleyball, and is believed to be conserving his energy for a major racing comeback in his 60s. Initial thoughts of beginning his comeback in 2010 received a setback when Duane realized he would then be giving 5 minutes start to rouleur extraordinaire and quadruple campionissimo Derek Tripp one year his senior. However, it is rumoured that 50s riders may be clubbing together to give Derek a sabbatical.
Duane is married to Dr. Helen Martindale optometrist, tennis player, versatile race organizer, and experienced marshall. Literary racers will savour Helen’s association through Trinity College Dublin with Oscar Wilde and James Joyce.
Duane’s trademark is a rock steady stay in the saddle position. He is still in with an outside chance at a prestigious, super elite breakthrough of the 24 minute barrier in the Sidney Velo 18k, but only if Helen lets him buy a new ridiculously expensive time trial bike. Early season training in Arizona might also be required. Costly yes, but this is the price (pun intended) you have to pay to beat Stephen ‘diesel thighs’ Price – 24’ 17’’ at age 61! Captain Chris Anstey, former Masters World Track Champion, another sexy sexagenarian, is still holding in battle formation and stoking up the knots on an array of equipment.
In cycle racing position on the bike is all important : be streamlined, powerful, relaxed, flat back, bent arms, fitting smoothly almost flowing over the bike. In order to see what a great time trial (or racing) position looks like go to Duane’s photos of Michael Stoehr Vh. D. (Dr. of Velosophy), Sidney Velo tt June 16th 2009 #40 – 43, May 19th #7 –11. Also study the photos of Emile de Rosnay June 2nd #49 –50, and May 26th #54 – 58. For the acme in aero (yet efficient, not strained) consult pictures of Super aero Don ‘Arrowman’ Gilmore, record holder on 3 BC time trial courses, eg. Sidney tt July 14th #3 – 7. Other models for style : ultra fast Stephen Baird former swimming champion; junior sensation Craig Logan – already 1st/2nd cat at 17; several lovely athletic women, eg. former track star Peggy Labiuk (Maass) – watch for names and pics of others; The Unknown Racer Sidney tt June 23rd #63 – 64. You may never ride as fast as these guys but if you learn to look like them you’ll be cool (and faster than if you didn’t have their style).
For more festive shots of cycle racing see The Chicks, Nanaimo River Road team tt 14th June 2009, #24; also Newton Heights June 3rd Aviawest coach Steve Lund winning with exuberant family support #78 –83.
Duane, a bird watcher, started cycle racing in his 40s after volleyball, and is believed to be conserving his energy for a major racing comeback in his 60s. Initial thoughts of beginning his comeback in 2010 received a setback when Duane realized he would then be giving 5 minutes start to rouleur extraordinaire and quadruple campionissimo Derek Tripp one year his senior. However, it is rumoured that 50s riders may be clubbing together to give Derek a sabbatical.
Duane is married to Dr. Helen Martindale optometrist, tennis player, versatile race organizer, and experienced marshall. Literary racers will savour Helen’s association through Trinity College Dublin with Oscar Wilde and James Joyce.
Duane’s trademark is a rock steady stay in the saddle position. He is still in with an outside chance at a prestigious, super elite breakthrough of the 24 minute barrier in the Sidney Velo 18k, but only if Helen lets him buy a new ridiculously expensive time trial bike. Early season training in Arizona might also be required. Costly yes, but this is the price (pun intended) you have to pay to beat Stephen ‘diesel thighs’ Price – 24’ 17’’ at age 61! Captain Chris Anstey, former Masters World Track Champion, another sexy sexagenarian, is still holding in battle formation and stoking up the knots on an array of equipment.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Courtney Arcadian Omnium Sat/Sun July 11 -12 2009
Comox Valley Cycling Club set an example of community oriented cycle racing. Racers ranged from age 11 to 71. A post-race meal together is an important part of promoting athletic fellowship and our noble sport. Thus the Saturday evening buffet dinner at the soccer clubhouse adjacent to Isfeld school was a good feature of the weekend omnium. Excellent conversation and food. Enjoyed chatting with May Jung (at the front in the B road race and hard on the wheel of Bill Yearwood in the hill climb) compact, powerful Ironwoman, North Vancouver Fitness trainer, and mother of 3 junior athletes.
In the pre-road race warm-up, Saturday morning, liked talking with tall Louis Watson (30s) Nanaimo, former UK Henley rower, and especially giving him a lead-out for a practice sprint. Louis discovered that 500 metres was too early to go. I like to think this preview aided his win in the A race. Pleasant discussion Sunday afternoon with Trevor Perkins (3rd A road race, 3rd A omnium) former pro downhill racer, Fort McMurray worker, in delightful Lewis riverside park Courtney – family swimming. Trevor confirmed Louis was the strong man in the As, often at the front.
As with the As a lead group of 12 or so stayed together to the end in the B road race. David Mercer got a gap of about 150 metres on the hill on the 3rd and 4th laps but was absorbed again by the highway. Bill Captain Helijet Yearwood was doing powerful surges at the front on the downhill, and instructing younger riders on the etiquette of also doing a turn. In the sprint Stuart Lynne (55) Vancouver, prominent at the front throughout, led out at about 600m with Mercer on his wheel. Mighty Mike Sevcov (56) Duncan roared by, then Bill, and Bill just got it as Mike faded in the last 40 metres.
The 60s were unlucky with Ray Morrison (Kelowna) puncturing twice, gentleman coureur Charles Sinclair and Swiss Canadian Chris Hahlen (Vancouver) former Ottawa Parliament chef and dairy farmer also flatting.
Magnanimous Duane Martindale (see separate blog) dropped out of the Bs with 1 lap to go even though very comfortable in the lead group. This was to take photos and help with the placings.
An energizing aspect of the Bs road race was the mix of riders – fast juniors, women, 55-59s, together with stately 60s. A bonus of cycle racing is getting to indulge a liking for athletic pulchritude arrayed in brightly coloured, figure-enhancing clothing. Redolent of archetypes of Homeric adventures and Olympian festivals. Remember Keats’ ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’. Good to see Icelandic Canadian Lisa Ingimunson returning to Masters after Maple Bay. Amazonian triathlete beauty Audrey Erlandson scorched the tt in 25’ 39’’ after graciously stopping in the B road race to give Ray Morrison a spare inner tube. Tall, lissome Amanda Wakeling 15 had one of the most stylish finishes in the mountain climb – hands on drops, photos # 81-3.
In the Sunday morning time trial David Mercer received a humbling shock when at 12 k he thought he heard a car approaching. It turned out to be Ray Wagner catching him for 2 minutes! Another appropriately operatic display by Ray to add to the saga. Super aero Don Gilmore (42) Shawnigan Lake hadn’t realized the tt start was moved up but fortunately was allowed to ride late. Don bolted round the 16 k loop in a breath taking 21’ 12’’ for course record (to add to his Nanaimo River Rd., and Old Lake Cowichan Rd. records). It would add interest and incentive to assemble overall and age group records for all Masters courses, circuits, and hill climbs.
There is something mythical, mystical, epic about bicycle mountain climbs. The symbolic ascent to Olympus; Mt.Everest. Riders ahead of you spread all over the mountain labouring as frozen in slow motion. Hugh Trenchard (Victoria, 40-44) went from the gun as though in a track pursuit. Ray Wagner and others quickly found this pace was suicidal for them. Many found it difficult to gauge their efforts, not saving something for the last 3 rises. Mike Sevcov looked to be overgeared. Some wished for a gear between 39 ´27 and 39 ´24.
Winner of the mountain climb and 2nd A omnium Peter Stevenson (Duncan, 40-4) again demonstrated his seemingly easy hill devouring form. Perhaps the best overall performance was by 15 year old Jordan Duncan (son of gourmet spinach lady Joanna) – 4th B road race, 24’32’’ tt, and 9th hill climb in 35’ 50”. Nevertheless Bill Yearwood’s (Vancouver, 57) victory in the B omnium was well-earned and deserved. In the mountain climb Bill alongside David Mercer helped both recover early lost ground. Mercer moved ahead on the later ascents with Bill pounding back on the brief descents (see Clafleur photo # 0826).
Gutsy rides from Thomas Andrew age 13 (3rd C road race), Jake van der Vliet also 13, and Kia van der Vliet 11 on very jazzy yellow bike - more budding Flying Dutchpersons! The racing contribution of hippy endurance man Ernie Klassen Black Creek was appreciated.
The hardest worker of the weekend was perhaps Linda Sinclair (ex- Western Washington University Bellingham teacher) who took on both registration and results coordinating for 3 races each embodying 3 separate categories. The lovely Susanna partner of Casey Ryder (Victoria, 40-4) versatile racer and jazz guitar maestro added charm to the medal ceremonies.
Best viewing spots : Road race and tt – top of Piercy Rd. climb before decline to highway. Mtn. Climb – top of penultimate rise looking down on hairpin bend; take binoculars.
Photo Pick. RR. #14 Louis Watson in superb tt position leading Ray Wagner.
B sprint. From East side: #18 –36, especially # 22 – 29. Excellent study of Bill Yearwood hurtling himself across the line. From West side: #38 –41.
A sprint. From W. side: #58 –73. Note Louis Watson head and shoulders down in beginning. Fine aggressive aero form from 4th place Jeff Natell. From E. side: #74 –81. Note #77 good low back, elbows out, and line lunge by 3rd place Trevor Perkins.
Hill climb finish. #7 winner Peter Stevenson on drops out of saddle for finishing burst. Best power finish – Bill Yearwood on drops out of saddle # 49 – 51.
Best finishing smile – Mike Sevcov # 46.
Clafleur RR # 0746 Louis Watson tt position leading at lap end.
B sprint. # 0751. Also other beautiful dramatic shots during mountain climb.
In the pre-road race warm-up, Saturday morning, liked talking with tall Louis Watson (30s) Nanaimo, former UK Henley rower, and especially giving him a lead-out for a practice sprint. Louis discovered that 500 metres was too early to go. I like to think this preview aided his win in the A race. Pleasant discussion Sunday afternoon with Trevor Perkins (3rd A road race, 3rd A omnium) former pro downhill racer, Fort McMurray worker, in delightful Lewis riverside park Courtney – family swimming. Trevor confirmed Louis was the strong man in the As, often at the front.
As with the As a lead group of 12 or so stayed together to the end in the B road race. David Mercer got a gap of about 150 metres on the hill on the 3rd and 4th laps but was absorbed again by the highway. Bill Captain Helijet Yearwood was doing powerful surges at the front on the downhill, and instructing younger riders on the etiquette of also doing a turn. In the sprint Stuart Lynne (55) Vancouver, prominent at the front throughout, led out at about 600m with Mercer on his wheel. Mighty Mike Sevcov (56) Duncan roared by, then Bill, and Bill just got it as Mike faded in the last 40 metres.
The 60s were unlucky with Ray Morrison (Kelowna) puncturing twice, gentleman coureur Charles Sinclair and Swiss Canadian Chris Hahlen (Vancouver) former Ottawa Parliament chef and dairy farmer also flatting.
Magnanimous Duane Martindale (see separate blog) dropped out of the Bs with 1 lap to go even though very comfortable in the lead group. This was to take photos and help with the placings.
An energizing aspect of the Bs road race was the mix of riders – fast juniors, women, 55-59s, together with stately 60s. A bonus of cycle racing is getting to indulge a liking for athletic pulchritude arrayed in brightly coloured, figure-enhancing clothing. Redolent of archetypes of Homeric adventures and Olympian festivals. Remember Keats’ ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’. Good to see Icelandic Canadian Lisa Ingimunson returning to Masters after Maple Bay. Amazonian triathlete beauty Audrey Erlandson scorched the tt in 25’ 39’’ after graciously stopping in the B road race to give Ray Morrison a spare inner tube. Tall, lissome Amanda Wakeling 15 had one of the most stylish finishes in the mountain climb – hands on drops, photos # 81-3.
In the Sunday morning time trial David Mercer received a humbling shock when at 12 k he thought he heard a car approaching. It turned out to be Ray Wagner catching him for 2 minutes! Another appropriately operatic display by Ray to add to the saga. Super aero Don Gilmore (42) Shawnigan Lake hadn’t realized the tt start was moved up but fortunately was allowed to ride late. Don bolted round the 16 k loop in a breath taking 21’ 12’’ for course record (to add to his Nanaimo River Rd., and Old Lake Cowichan Rd. records). It would add interest and incentive to assemble overall and age group records for all Masters courses, circuits, and hill climbs.
There is something mythical, mystical, epic about bicycle mountain climbs. The symbolic ascent to Olympus; Mt.Everest. Riders ahead of you spread all over the mountain labouring as frozen in slow motion. Hugh Trenchard (Victoria, 40-44) went from the gun as though in a track pursuit. Ray Wagner and others quickly found this pace was suicidal for them. Many found it difficult to gauge their efforts, not saving something for the last 3 rises. Mike Sevcov looked to be overgeared. Some wished for a gear between 39 ´27 and 39 ´24.
Winner of the mountain climb and 2nd A omnium Peter Stevenson (Duncan, 40-4) again demonstrated his seemingly easy hill devouring form. Perhaps the best overall performance was by 15 year old Jordan Duncan (son of gourmet spinach lady Joanna) – 4th B road race, 24’32’’ tt, and 9th hill climb in 35’ 50”. Nevertheless Bill Yearwood’s (Vancouver, 57) victory in the B omnium was well-earned and deserved. In the mountain climb Bill alongside David Mercer helped both recover early lost ground. Mercer moved ahead on the later ascents with Bill pounding back on the brief descents (see Clafleur photo # 0826).
Gutsy rides from Thomas Andrew age 13 (3rd C road race), Jake van der Vliet also 13, and Kia van der Vliet 11 on very jazzy yellow bike - more budding Flying Dutchpersons! The racing contribution of hippy endurance man Ernie Klassen Black Creek was appreciated.
The hardest worker of the weekend was perhaps Linda Sinclair (ex- Western Washington University Bellingham teacher) who took on both registration and results coordinating for 3 races each embodying 3 separate categories. The lovely Susanna partner of Casey Ryder (Victoria, 40-4) versatile racer and jazz guitar maestro added charm to the medal ceremonies.
Best viewing spots : Road race and tt – top of Piercy Rd. climb before decline to highway. Mtn. Climb – top of penultimate rise looking down on hairpin bend; take binoculars.
Photo Pick.
B sprint. From East side: #18 –36, especially # 22 – 29. Excellent study of Bill Yearwood hurtling himself across the line. From West side: #38 –41.
A sprint. From W. side: #58 –73. Note Louis Watson head and shoulders down in beginning. Fine aggressive aero form from 4th place Jeff Natell. From E. side: #74 –81. Note #77 good low back, elbows out, and line lunge by 3rd place Trevor Perkins.
Hill climb finish. #7 winner Peter Stevenson on drops out of saddle for finishing burst. Best power finish – Bill Yearwood on drops out of saddle # 49 – 51.
Best finishing smile – Mike Sevcov # 46.
Clafleur
B sprint. # 0751. Also other beautiful dramatic shots during mountain climb.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Kelowna Cherry Kermesse Sat/Sun July 4-5th 2009
Lithe muscled figures in vivid figure-hugging jerseys and shorts streaking down vineyard slopes. Below 4 k away a rippled holiday resort lake. Olive hills and yellow ochre villas. Mountain backdrop, cherry trees, bone-warming sun, semi-desert air. Don’t need to be in Tuscany, Greece, the Giro D’Italia, Milan – San Remo, or Tour of Lombardy. You have all this ambience in Kelowna cycle racing.
To the Winfield Criterium course, 1.7 k safe, fast, challenging : East on Beaver Lake Rd., south on Jim Bailey Rd. Best viewing spot : top of the incline by the corner, back stretch, where the breaks occur and riders are shed.
The 60s were invigorated by the presence of delectable younger female racers - David Mercer being sufficiently stimulated to lap the field. Eric Rayson (71), ex-Geordie and rock/mountain climber was last to be picked off. Rose Filiatraut of the euphonious appellation was a classy 7th out of 13.
In the under-60 crit David Kirk made a valiant solo attack at about midway to gain 80 metres only to be absorbed after a couple more laps. The field of 19 was whittled down to a lead group of 14 with 15 minutes to go. The lung-bursting last lap saw this bunch strikingly strung out. A sprint of 4, then Gary Wade, then the sprint for 6th to 11th. Peter Tonkin (45-49) ex-patriate South African, younger brother of Bruce a Victoria cycle race stalwart, was a scintillating 2nd to younger men Steve Kraetzer (35-9) 1st, and Simon Craig (40-4) 3rd. Jovial, jesting Janusz Grelecki (55-9) imposingly accoutred with classic Mercedes was first of the 50s at 11th.
To the S.E. Kelowna 9 k road race circuit : S off KLO Rd. on Spiers Rd. Viewing spot : last and steepest part of the June Springs Rd. climb at the McClain Rd. intersection. The 60s duo of Roy Quade, Calgarian ex-mathematician now violin bow maker, and David Mercer were surpassed by nimble Nordic notable Olav stunning Stana near the top of June Springs Rd. on the 5th lap. A lap later the tiring 60s tandem were caught by a lead group of 8 40s plus a single 30s rider – Trevor Haaheim. Olav’s supremacy shows in that the lead 40s riding as a strong group were able to regain only 1½ minutes on Olav racing alone. Again the run-in strung out the lead chasers. First a sprint for 2nd – 4th won by Tom Stewart (45-9) Vancouver, then another 3 at 4 seconds, followed by Anton Kew (40-4) Grand Forks about 15 seconds adrift.
Further enhancing female presence in the rr of Tanille Stickley – 1st woman.
Phil Macdougal (50-4) crashed early on a descent but courageously remounted for 16th overall and 2nd in the 50s. Elegant ex-Parisian veteran Robert Dumalanede made a wrong turn just before the finish but was close to his cosmopolitan Italian-Canadian colleague Rino di Biasio.
Combined results for the weekend’s 2 events would be :
Under-60s : 1. Tom Stewart. 2. Simon Craig. 3. Trevor Haaheim and Gary Wade – tie.
60+ : 1. David Mercer. 2. Roy Quade. 3. Des Snider.
Women : 1. Rose Filiatraut. 2. Carol Chester. 3. Barb Penner.
Photo pick (courtesy duanebc.com) : Under-60 crit : #135-6, Tom Stewart classic roadman sprint, head and shoulders way down, arms outstretched, thrusting his bike at the line. #138, powerful Anton Kew out of the saddle, on the drops, head down, flat back, throwing his bike around. RR : #113-4, again Tom Stewart in superb sprinting position.
Using my system for awarding overall points for crits (see Cedar Bowl blog May) Peter Tonkin 2nd in the under-60s crit could have received 4 ½ bonus points for beating 9 riders of younger age categories plus 3 ½ regular points (half of 7 since total field divided into 2 crits) for a total of 8. By the same reckoning winner Steve Kraetzer would have gained 5 regular points (half of 10) but only ½ bonus point, for a total of 5 ½.
Organisers Ray Morrison and Eric Rayson had to pay over $100 for the services of one flag person. Clearly, BCMCA and Cycling BC have to coordinate with BC Ministry of
Transportation to ensure that municipalities recognize the validity of our own marshalling courses.
To the Winfield Criterium course, 1.7 k safe, fast, challenging : East on Beaver Lake Rd., south on Jim Bailey Rd. Best viewing spot : top of the incline by the corner, back stretch, where the breaks occur and riders are shed.
The 60s were invigorated by the presence of delectable younger female racers - David Mercer being sufficiently stimulated to lap the field. Eric Rayson (71), ex-Geordie and rock/mountain climber was last to be picked off. Rose Filiatraut of the euphonious appellation was a classy 7th out of 13.
In the under-60 crit David Kirk made a valiant solo attack at about midway to gain 80 metres only to be absorbed after a couple more laps. The field of 19 was whittled down to a lead group of 14 with 15 minutes to go. The lung-bursting last lap saw this bunch strikingly strung out. A sprint of 4, then Gary Wade, then the sprint for 6th to 11th. Peter Tonkin (45-49) ex-patriate South African, younger brother of Bruce a Victoria cycle race stalwart, was a scintillating 2nd to younger men Steve Kraetzer (35-9) 1st, and Simon Craig (40-4) 3rd. Jovial, jesting Janusz Grelecki (55-9) imposingly accoutred with classic Mercedes was first of the 50s at 11th.
To the S.E. Kelowna 9 k road race circuit : S off KLO Rd. on Spiers Rd. Viewing spot : last and steepest part of the June Springs Rd. climb at the McClain Rd. intersection. The 60s duo of Roy Quade, Calgarian ex-mathematician now violin bow maker, and David Mercer were surpassed by nimble Nordic notable Olav stunning Stana near the top of June Springs Rd. on the 5th lap. A lap later the tiring 60s tandem were caught by a lead group of 8 40s plus a single 30s rider – Trevor Haaheim. Olav’s supremacy shows in that the lead 40s riding as a strong group were able to regain only 1½ minutes on Olav racing alone. Again the run-in strung out the lead chasers. First a sprint for 2nd – 4th won by Tom Stewart (45-9) Vancouver, then another 3 at 4 seconds, followed by Anton Kew (40-4) Grand Forks about 15 seconds adrift.
Further enhancing female presence in the rr of Tanille Stickley – 1st woman.
Phil Macdougal (50-4) crashed early on a descent but courageously remounted for 16th overall and 2nd in the 50s. Elegant ex-Parisian veteran Robert Dumalanede made a wrong turn just before the finish but was close to his cosmopolitan Italian-Canadian colleague Rino di Biasio.
Combined results for the weekend’s 2 events would be :
Under-60s : 1. Tom Stewart. 2. Simon Craig. 3. Trevor Haaheim and Gary Wade – tie.
60+ : 1. David Mercer. 2. Roy Quade. 3. Des Snider.
Women : 1. Rose Filiatraut. 2. Carol Chester. 3. Barb Penner.
Photo pick (courtesy duanebc.com) : Under-60 crit : #135-6, Tom Stewart classic roadman sprint, head and shoulders way down, arms outstretched, thrusting his bike at the line. #138, powerful Anton Kew out of the saddle, on the drops, head down, flat back, throwing his bike around. RR : #113-4, again Tom Stewart in superb sprinting position.
Using my system for awarding overall points for crits (see Cedar Bowl blog May) Peter Tonkin 2nd in the under-60s crit could have received 4 ½ bonus points for beating 9 riders of younger age categories plus 3 ½ regular points (half of 7 since total field divided into 2 crits) for a total of 8. By the same reckoning winner Steve Kraetzer would have gained 5 regular points (half of 10) but only ½ bonus point, for a total of 5 ½.
Organisers Ray Morrison and Eric Rayson had to pay over $100 for the services of one flag person. Clearly, BCMCA and Cycling BC have to coordinate with BC Ministry of
Transportation to ensure that municipalities recognize the validity of our own marshalling courses.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Metchosin Australian Pursuit Cycle Race June 28th 2009
Metchosin Road Race. Australian Pursuit. 55k. Sunday June 28th 2009.
In Australian pursuit BCMCA cycle races riders start in 10 year age groups in reverse order of age. 60s start 6 minutes after the 70s, 50s 5 minutes after the 60s, 40s 4 minutes after the 50s, and 30s 3 minutes after the 40s. This is for courses of about 64k or 1 hour 45 minutes winning time. Women start in the 10 year age group next senior to their actual age. An exciting, satisfying aspect of this format is how the faster 40s, 50s, and 60s often come together with about 10k to go. Pity the 70s though who tend to get caught by halfway, and the 30s who are left in the wake of the fast riders amongst the 40s. How about 1 minute more start for the 70s, and 1 minute less delay for the 30s?
Out of the large 40s contingent of 17 an allegro trio of Don Gilmore, Steve Bachop, and Hugh Trenchard soon steamed away after about 2 laps con brio. The rival 50s trio of Chris Cameron, Ray Wagner, and Derek Tripp had likewise shed their colleagues early on. With about 2 laps to go Don and co overhauled the 50s threesome with Chris Cameron showing his power staying with the lead 40s and taking 3rd in the sprint. The lead four had swept by the 60s tiring tandem of David Mercer and Ray Morrison (Kelowna) just before the top of Kangaroo Road – 1 and half laps to go – with Derek and Ray trailing at 40m.
Many found the headwind stretch on Rocky Point Rd. challenging. Also, the steep climb of Lindholm though short comes just after a long rise up Kangaroo with nasty kicks at the end. Mike Korb, having a recent cold and lack of miles, didn’t make the 40s cut. Similarly, David Emery, a bit of asthma, wasn’t up with the 70s leaders. John Smith, however, celebrating his 74th birthday a day early, had breath enough to greet a gasping David Mercer as the latter went by up the steepest part of Lindholm. An impressive ride by Eric Rayson age 71 (Kelowna) who at 14th overall finished ahead of all the 30s and 45-49 group.
Good to see Fernwood Inn hotelier Scott Martin again – only his 2nd race of the year. Scott marshaled a smooth 30s quartet to a finishing sprint and then gazed to his left to admire Larry Wilson stomping by. The 30s group was the only one to finish together apart from the first four.
Stephen Muir (Kelowna) 45-49 was a welcome return rider as was comeback racer Alix Read (Duncan) bringing along her cheerful daughter for support. Conny Strub the only other woman racer finished 3rd out of her starting group. A coed atmosphere is very energizing. Let’s have more female presence – balance, charm, wholeness. (Refreshing for instance to see Chris Paul, no mean racer himself, marshalling in the Sidney Velo tt while partner Rhonda Callender streaks round the course in very fetching maglio rosa.)
Duane Martindale’s photos of the sprint finishes (duanebc.com/raceresults.html or bcmasterscycling.net) repay study. Most winning riders favoured on the drops and out of the saddle – really get your back into it. Former national track sprinter Don Gilmore, cruising the steep climbs without an inner ring, stayed in the saddle at the end as usual, but note the flat back and head down as he lifts off from the others with 200m to go. Cyclo-cross specialist and former 800/1500m runner Steve Bachop also looked powerful at 2nd in the final sprint.
Gratifying to see the work of veteran course lay-out man Dave Garrick recognized with a $60 gift voucher from Market On Yates. Also happy to see Jim Holtz magisterially commanding the tricky Lindholm - Happy Valley marshalling spot. Hopefully Jim will be getting a much lighter bike soon so he can float up the hills more fluently. Unluckiest racer - guitar virtuoso Casey Ryder crashing on the descent trying to avoid a motorist coming out of a driveway abruptly.
Good to see Bill Ethier out recuperating from his crit. crash discovering that crutches make an excellent directional aid for racers too stunned by the severity of the course to distinguish one turn from another or from a hole in the ground. Next time Bill intends to wear an eye patch, cocked hat, and have a parrot on his shoulder. Partner Sarah West lent a touch of class to the medal ceremonies.
The entire athletic symphony was orchestrated and conducted by experienced Kim and Joe Gard. Tripleshot (remember the ‘h’!) Peter Lawless time-trial maestro – when on an extremely flat course and his brother’s Cervelo P3 – mc’d with éclat.
Satisfaction, enjoyment: calm, repose, solitude eating my Wasa Rye and dates next to majestic cedars by the children’s play area as Bill Yearwood soared overhead in his helicopter. Each race a dance celebrating vitality. Those who can no longer perform replaced by others who have learned the moves. So the festival or saga continues in honour of athletic exhilaration and physique, sensuous connexion with body and nature. Racers grow old and die but the race goes on.
In Australian pursuit BCMCA cycle races riders start in 10 year age groups in reverse order of age. 60s start 6 minutes after the 70s, 50s 5 minutes after the 60s, 40s 4 minutes after the 50s, and 30s 3 minutes after the 40s. This is for courses of about 64k or 1 hour 45 minutes winning time. Women start in the 10 year age group next senior to their actual age. An exciting, satisfying aspect of this format is how the faster 40s, 50s, and 60s often come together with about 10k to go. Pity the 70s though who tend to get caught by halfway, and the 30s who are left in the wake of the fast riders amongst the 40s. How about 1 minute more start for the 70s, and 1 minute less delay for the 30s?
Out of the large 40s contingent of 17 an allegro trio of Don Gilmore, Steve Bachop, and Hugh Trenchard soon steamed away after about 2 laps con brio. The rival 50s trio of Chris Cameron, Ray Wagner, and Derek Tripp had likewise shed their colleagues early on. With about 2 laps to go Don and co overhauled the 50s threesome with Chris Cameron showing his power staying with the lead 40s and taking 3rd in the sprint. The lead four had swept by the 60s tiring tandem of David Mercer and Ray Morrison (Kelowna) just before the top of Kangaroo Road – 1 and half laps to go – with Derek and Ray trailing at 40m.
Many found the headwind stretch on Rocky Point Rd. challenging. Also, the steep climb of Lindholm though short comes just after a long rise up Kangaroo with nasty kicks at the end. Mike Korb, having a recent cold and lack of miles, didn’t make the 40s cut. Similarly, David Emery, a bit of asthma, wasn’t up with the 70s leaders. John Smith, however, celebrating his 74th birthday a day early, had breath enough to greet a gasping David Mercer as the latter went by up the steepest part of Lindholm. An impressive ride by Eric Rayson age 71 (Kelowna) who at 14th overall finished ahead of all the 30s and 45-49 group.
Good to see Fernwood Inn hotelier Scott Martin again – only his 2nd race of the year. Scott marshaled a smooth 30s quartet to a finishing sprint and then gazed to his left to admire Larry Wilson stomping by. The 30s group was the only one to finish together apart from the first four.
Stephen Muir (Kelowna) 45-49 was a welcome return rider as was comeback racer Alix Read (Duncan) bringing along her cheerful daughter for support. Conny Strub the only other woman racer finished 3rd out of her starting group. A coed atmosphere is very energizing. Let’s have more female presence – balance, charm, wholeness. (Refreshing for instance to see Chris Paul, no mean racer himself, marshalling in the Sidney Velo tt while partner Rhonda Callender streaks round the course in very fetching maglio rosa.)
Duane Martindale’s photos of the sprint finishes (duanebc.com/raceresults.html or bcmasterscycling.net) repay study. Most winning riders favoured on the drops and out of the saddle – really get your back into it. Former national track sprinter Don Gilmore, cruising the steep climbs without an inner ring, stayed in the saddle at the end as usual, but note the flat back and head down as he lifts off from the others with 200m to go. Cyclo-cross specialist and former 800/1500m runner Steve Bachop also looked powerful at 2nd in the final sprint.
Gratifying to see the work of veteran course lay-out man Dave Garrick recognized with a $60 gift voucher from Market On Yates. Also happy to see Jim Holtz magisterially commanding the tricky Lindholm - Happy Valley marshalling spot. Hopefully Jim will be getting a much lighter bike soon so he can float up the hills more fluently. Unluckiest racer - guitar virtuoso Casey Ryder crashing on the descent trying to avoid a motorist coming out of a driveway abruptly.
Good to see Bill Ethier out recuperating from his crit. crash discovering that crutches make an excellent directional aid for racers too stunned by the severity of the course to distinguish one turn from another or from a hole in the ground. Next time Bill intends to wear an eye patch, cocked hat, and have a parrot on his shoulder. Partner Sarah West lent a touch of class to the medal ceremonies.
The entire athletic symphony was orchestrated and conducted by experienced Kim and Joe Gard. Tripleshot (remember the ‘h’!) Peter Lawless time-trial maestro – when on an extremely flat course and his brother’s Cervelo P3 – mc’d with éclat.
Satisfaction, enjoyment: calm, repose, solitude eating my Wasa Rye and dates next to majestic cedars by the children’s play area as Bill Yearwood soared overhead in his helicopter. Each race a dance celebrating vitality. Those who can no longer perform replaced by others who have learned the moves. So the festival or saga continues in honour of athletic exhilaration and physique, sensuous connexion with body and nature. Racers grow old and die but the race goes on.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Criticising Religion
Public criticism is a cherished freedom. Criticism could be of a policy, institution, practice, book, culture, attitude, belief, law, philosophical outlook, movement, or ideology, religion in general, or a particular religion. Criticism (cf. literary criticism – showing how a text hangs together to produce certain effects) involves giving reasons, arguments, evidence why :
A belief is unreasonable, implausible, false, irrational.
A practice or belief is psychologically or socially harmful.
A practice or belief is unjust or immoral.
Criticism is not the same as name-calling or just asserting or contradicting.
Guiding, meaning-giving outlooks or beliefs – atheistic as well as religious - are arrived at as a result of coping and protecting mechanisms (as well as acculturation and conditioning), and themselves become a fundamental part of our coping/defence mechanisms. People thereby develop a strong emotional attachment to/investment in a particular philosophical, political, or religious outlook. They will tend to get upset by criticism of a view or practice in which they are emotionally invested or which gives meaning to their lives.
Thus books like Richard Dawkins ‘The God Delusion’ or Christopher Hitchens ‘God Is Not Great’ often evoke emotional reactivity rather than a calm measured response even in academics. Criticism of these works/authors relies heavily on use of pejorative terms – ‘childish’, ‘old-fashioned’, ‘simplistic’, ‘ignorant’, ‘smug’. This sneering is different from analyzing the arguments and pointing out dubious premises and presuppositions, non sequiturs, and informal fallacies such as equivocation, straw man, red herring, ad hominem. It is different from questioning analyses of key terms and concepts, and offering more plausible or clearer analyses.
One academic critic, Terry Eagleton, tries to invalidate the Dawkins-Hitchens thesis by claiming that it is motivated by pro-Western, anti-Islamic bias or bigotry. This is to overlook the distinction between what may influence acceptance of a belief and whether or not the belief is true. Thus I may readily accept that second-hand tobacco smoke is a grave health danger because I find it unpleasant but that doesn’t mean evidence and arguments I put forward for the damage to health caused by second-hand tobacco smoke can be ignored.
It is very important to look at underlying, unacknowledged motives or reasons for why people embrace certain views and reject others – why they are emotionally invested in or attracted to certain positions, views, or beliefs and find others too upsetting to look at fairly. This does not supplant the need for logical examination of evidence and arguments for views we may find distressing or threatening because of self-interest or for more general psychological reasons.
A common move to safeguard religion from criticism is to equivocate and redefine religion in terms of characteristics which are paradigmatically reasonable and desirable. So, (true) religion is said to be : belief in the transformative power of love, forgiveness, compassion; openness to the possibility of something transcending the natural physical world and ordinary human consciousness; recognizing that happiness and fulfillment do not come primarily from the pursuit of material benefits – renunciation of hedonism, selfishness, greed, pursuit of wealth, status, or worldly power; losing the self in order to enlarge the self; appreciation of art, beauty, the wonder of nature; awareness of deep, poetic, mystical feelings or experiences which are not easily captured in utilitarian, mundane, or scientific language; a fairer distribution of wealth, decent quality of life for all, greater equality of opportunity.
Perhaps most/all religions do in part preach these goods but this is definitely not their sole focus (further, many who are non-religious or anti-religion practise and advocate these values perhaps as much as or more than religious believers or practioners!). Instead religions assert specific doctrines – a code, cult, and creed – which are at least questionable on moral, rational, and humane grounds. Religious doctrines include :
A sacred text.
A psychoid quasi-eternal power of goodness and love somehow sustaining the universe and human life which existed before human beings and would still exist even if human beings were annihilated.
Some kind of life after death.
The immorality of homosexuality, abortion, contraception, sex outside of marriage, euthanasia, assisted euthanasia, suicide, eating pork, alcohol, bloodtransfusions.
The unfitness of women for spiritual office.
Restricting the freedom and autonomy of women.
Sanctioning the death penalty, burning, stoning, flogging, female circumcision, mutilation, fatwahs, holy wars, animal sacrifice.
Obeisance to priests or clerics and images or sites.
Various rules concerning food, clothing, prayer, fasting.
(Note in passing that religion seems very much about control – particularly of women and sexuality.)
A main point of the Dawkins-Hitchens critique is that religions do not focus on advocating and practicing generally acknowledged goods and guides to human fulfillment such as brotherly love, non-violence, fairer distribution of wealth, equal opportunity, a sense of the transcendent or non-mundane, overcoming selfishness and greed, etc. Instead religions strenuously inculcate dogmas about the nature of God and underlying reality and laws of conduct which God supposedly commands. How arrogant to claim to know definitely the mind of God and ultimate reality! Religion is the greatest blasphemy.
Rationalist critics of religion such as Dawkins, Hitchens, or Bertrand Russell may be closer to anti-rationalist poet-visionary William Blake than are defenders of organized traditional religion. It is worth remembering that both Socrates and Jesus were put to death for questioning established religion. Religion including communist and Marxist ideology has repeatedly opposed open critical inquiry.
In making sweeping claims not open to question about fundamental reality and codes of conduct religions breed intolerance and unwillingness to open one’s own underlying beliefs to examination and criticism. Either you believe as we do or you must be immoral, ignorant, stupid, or insensitive (or in Eagleton’s terms childish, old-fashioned, or blinkered/corrupted by Western rationalism, materialism, or imperialism). We already have the truth on grounds superior to logic, observation, and calm analysis (viz. revelation, holy scripture, the mythopoeic, tradition, the Church) so we don’t need to look at evidence, arguments against, and criticism of our own beliefs.
Religion is very much a human natural phenomenon springing out of human psychology, needs, fears, yearnings, and defence and coping mechanisms. As such it is not immune from criticism, but rather stands in need of it. (If there is a religious, mythopoeic, or non-rational way of knowing it should still be open to intersubjective criticism of some sort to remove possible bias or error.) Criticism should not be stifled by accusations of racism, Western bias, bourgeois liberalism, etc. Political correctness can become a new form of fascism.
It is dangerous if we dare not criticize lest members of a supposed visible 'minority' are offended. Being upset or upsetting is part of the nature of criticism. Learning to give and receive criticism (politely) and be upset is more healthy than pretending large portions of humanity do not really have flaws (or if they do it is just a legitimate response to/natural consequence of Western colonial oppression – as though colonizing and oppression have not been widespread throughout human history anyway).
It is dishonest and unhealthy to pretend all religions fundamentally express the same doctrines about underlying reality, and the same codes of conduct, notions of social justice, and attitudes to non-believers and women. A vital part of a healthy society is to have open critical discussion of all political outlooks, philosophies, and religions.
A belief is unreasonable, implausible, false, irrational.
A practice or belief is psychologically or socially harmful.
A practice or belief is unjust or immoral.
Criticism is not the same as name-calling or just asserting or contradicting.
Guiding, meaning-giving outlooks or beliefs – atheistic as well as religious - are arrived at as a result of coping and protecting mechanisms (as well as acculturation and conditioning), and themselves become a fundamental part of our coping/defence mechanisms. People thereby develop a strong emotional attachment to/investment in a particular philosophical, political, or religious outlook. They will tend to get upset by criticism of a view or practice in which they are emotionally invested or which gives meaning to their lives.
Thus books like Richard Dawkins ‘The God Delusion’ or Christopher Hitchens ‘God Is Not Great’ often evoke emotional reactivity rather than a calm measured response even in academics. Criticism of these works/authors relies heavily on use of pejorative terms – ‘childish’, ‘old-fashioned’, ‘simplistic’, ‘ignorant’, ‘smug’. This sneering is different from analyzing the arguments and pointing out dubious premises and presuppositions, non sequiturs, and informal fallacies such as equivocation, straw man, red herring, ad hominem. It is different from questioning analyses of key terms and concepts, and offering more plausible or clearer analyses.
One academic critic, Terry Eagleton, tries to invalidate the Dawkins-Hitchens thesis by claiming that it is motivated by pro-Western, anti-Islamic bias or bigotry. This is to overlook the distinction between what may influence acceptance of a belief and whether or not the belief is true. Thus I may readily accept that second-hand tobacco smoke is a grave health danger because I find it unpleasant but that doesn’t mean evidence and arguments I put forward for the damage to health caused by second-hand tobacco smoke can be ignored.
It is very important to look at underlying, unacknowledged motives or reasons for why people embrace certain views and reject others – why they are emotionally invested in or attracted to certain positions, views, or beliefs and find others too upsetting to look at fairly. This does not supplant the need for logical examination of evidence and arguments for views we may find distressing or threatening because of self-interest or for more general psychological reasons.
A common move to safeguard religion from criticism is to equivocate and redefine religion in terms of characteristics which are paradigmatically reasonable and desirable. So, (true) religion is said to be : belief in the transformative power of love, forgiveness, compassion; openness to the possibility of something transcending the natural physical world and ordinary human consciousness; recognizing that happiness and fulfillment do not come primarily from the pursuit of material benefits – renunciation of hedonism, selfishness, greed, pursuit of wealth, status, or worldly power; losing the self in order to enlarge the self; appreciation of art, beauty, the wonder of nature; awareness of deep, poetic, mystical feelings or experiences which are not easily captured in utilitarian, mundane, or scientific language; a fairer distribution of wealth, decent quality of life for all, greater equality of opportunity.
Perhaps most/all religions do in part preach these goods but this is definitely not their sole focus (further, many who are non-religious or anti-religion practise and advocate these values perhaps as much as or more than religious believers or practioners!). Instead religions assert specific doctrines – a code, cult, and creed – which are at least questionable on moral, rational, and humane grounds. Religious doctrines include :
A sacred text.
A psychoid quasi-eternal power of goodness and love somehow sustaining the universe and human life which existed before human beings and would still exist even if human beings were annihilated.
Some kind of life after death.
The immorality of homosexuality, abortion, contraception, sex outside of marriage, euthanasia, assisted euthanasia, suicide, eating pork, alcohol, bloodtransfusions.
The unfitness of women for spiritual office.
Restricting the freedom and autonomy of women.
Sanctioning the death penalty, burning, stoning, flogging, female circumcision, mutilation, fatwahs, holy wars, animal sacrifice.
Obeisance to priests or clerics and images or sites.
Various rules concerning food, clothing, prayer, fasting.
(Note in passing that religion seems very much about control – particularly of women and sexuality.)
A main point of the Dawkins-Hitchens critique is that religions do not focus on advocating and practicing generally acknowledged goods and guides to human fulfillment such as brotherly love, non-violence, fairer distribution of wealth, equal opportunity, a sense of the transcendent or non-mundane, overcoming selfishness and greed, etc. Instead religions strenuously inculcate dogmas about the nature of God and underlying reality and laws of conduct which God supposedly commands. How arrogant to claim to know definitely the mind of God and ultimate reality! Religion is the greatest blasphemy.
Rationalist critics of religion such as Dawkins, Hitchens, or Bertrand Russell may be closer to anti-rationalist poet-visionary William Blake than are defenders of organized traditional religion. It is worth remembering that both Socrates and Jesus were put to death for questioning established religion. Religion including communist and Marxist ideology has repeatedly opposed open critical inquiry.
In making sweeping claims not open to question about fundamental reality and codes of conduct religions breed intolerance and unwillingness to open one’s own underlying beliefs to examination and criticism. Either you believe as we do or you must be immoral, ignorant, stupid, or insensitive (or in Eagleton’s terms childish, old-fashioned, or blinkered/corrupted by Western rationalism, materialism, or imperialism). We already have the truth on grounds superior to logic, observation, and calm analysis (viz. revelation, holy scripture, the mythopoeic, tradition, the Church) so we don’t need to look at evidence, arguments against, and criticism of our own beliefs.
Religion is very much a human natural phenomenon springing out of human psychology, needs, fears, yearnings, and defence and coping mechanisms. As such it is not immune from criticism, but rather stands in need of it. (If there is a religious, mythopoeic, or non-rational way of knowing it should still be open to intersubjective criticism of some sort to remove possible bias or error.) Criticism should not be stifled by accusations of racism, Western bias, bourgeois liberalism, etc. Political correctness can become a new form of fascism.
It is dangerous if we dare not criticize lest members of a supposed visible 'minority' are offended. Being upset or upsetting is part of the nature of criticism. Learning to give and receive criticism (politely) and be upset is more healthy than pretending large portions of humanity do not really have flaws (or if they do it is just a legitimate response to/natural consequence of Western colonial oppression – as though colonizing and oppression have not been widespread throughout human history anyway).
It is dishonest and unhealthy to pretend all religions fundamentally express the same doctrines about underlying reality, and the same codes of conduct, notions of social justice, and attitudes to non-believers and women. A vital part of a healthy society is to have open critical discussion of all political outlooks, philosophies, and religions.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Keeping up with Bill
Esteemed BCMCA President Bill Yearwood, professional looking sprinter and time triallist, frequently awes race followers by arriving at races piloting his own helicopter. Bill as part of his high profile job with the Federal aviation safety board is required to get in a certain number of flying hours. When not dropping in by helicopter Bill turns up in a sporty Mini in which bikes and wheels are layered like a gourmet cake often accompanied by elegant female racer and cosmopolitan European style speed skater Conny Strub. This is a tough act to follow. Here are some suggestions.
1.Arrange for local priest to bless you and your bike before start. Double points for Bishop. Triple points for Cardinal or Prince Charles. Automatic overall season win if Pope (Queen Elizabeth, Barak Obama, or resurrected Princess Diana) is secured.
2.Drop in to race headquarters by parachute with race bike in camouflage pack.
3.Before bike warm up do Muhammad Ali skipping and sparring routine complete with dazzling leg shuffle. Soigneur holds robe with your name on it and has heavy punch bag for you to work on.
4.Arrive in limo with starlet. Latter positions herself on hill in provocative outfit cheering you on, and hands you glass of champagne at finish.
5.Ride in on Harley with race bike in trailer escorted by Hell’s Angels. Said Hell’s Angels prep your bike and give you pre-race massage before heading off to chalk your name on road and hurl menacing insults at riders they deem are not giving you a fair break.
6.Study photos of professional Classic sprint finishes. Get your head banging the bars, shoulders lower than bum, biceps pumped up, upper torso stretched out like a champion weightlifter. Blast off at 150 metres, surge in the last 30m with a second kick like a rodeo bronco.
7.Arrange for TV crew to interview mainly you at finish no matter who wins.
8.Have Sara Palin, TV evangelist, etc. denounce your racing style as un-American, against family values, bad for the economy, and displeasing to God.
9.For events close to water. Arrive standing in prow of boat rowed by 16 vestal virgins (check escort agencies) clad in shimmering purple and gold skinsuit and winged helmet. Arm mysteriously thrusts up from water holding aloft gleaming state of art racing machine which you accept.
1.Arrange for local priest to bless you and your bike before start. Double points for Bishop. Triple points for Cardinal or Prince Charles. Automatic overall season win if Pope (Queen Elizabeth, Barak Obama, or resurrected Princess Diana) is secured.
2.Drop in to race headquarters by parachute with race bike in camouflage pack.
3.Before bike warm up do Muhammad Ali skipping and sparring routine complete with dazzling leg shuffle. Soigneur holds robe with your name on it and has heavy punch bag for you to work on.
4.Arrive in limo with starlet. Latter positions herself on hill in provocative outfit cheering you on, and hands you glass of champagne at finish.
5.Ride in on Harley with race bike in trailer escorted by Hell’s Angels. Said Hell’s Angels prep your bike and give you pre-race massage before heading off to chalk your name on road and hurl menacing insults at riders they deem are not giving you a fair break.
6.Study photos of professional Classic sprint finishes. Get your head banging the bars, shoulders lower than bum, biceps pumped up, upper torso stretched out like a champion weightlifter. Blast off at 150 metres, surge in the last 30m with a second kick like a rodeo bronco.
7.Arrange for TV crew to interview mainly you at finish no matter who wins.
8.Have Sara Palin, TV evangelist, etc. denounce your racing style as un-American, against family values, bad for the economy, and displeasing to God.
9.For events close to water. Arrive standing in prow of boat rowed by 16 vestal virgins (check escort agencies) clad in shimmering purple and gold skinsuit and winged helmet. Arm mysteriously thrusts up from water holding aloft gleaming state of art racing machine which you accept.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Mill Bay and Shawnigan Hill Climbs 2009
Saturday 6th June. Noon, and 2pm.
The Comox Valley Cycling Club trio of Ray Wagner, Chuck Sinclair, and Peter Schwirtlich swooped south to scoop team titles in the South Island Masters Hill Climbs. Swift, athletic Peter Stevenson (Duncan) made it look easy winning both climbs dancing on the pedals with a distinctive loping almost prancing style.
Stevenson’s second win at Shawnigan was dramatic. David Mercer had leaped from the “go” on his own 2 minutes after the 70s. Derek Tripp and Ray Wagner left their 50s group (starting 1’30” after the 60s) almost immediately, catching Mercer just after the turn onto Goldstream Heights at c. 6k. David clung on at his limit until about 80m before the false summit, then the thread broke, and 40m later Peter Stevenson rushed by. Peter caught Ray and flagging Derek only in the last 150 metres. That last 200m was very arduous taking lesser riders than Stevenson and Wagner more than 35 seconds.
The short Mill Bay hill climb, an individual time trial, directed by nonchalant Tony Hoar was reminiscent of UK track bike style climbs, except for the tricky descent in the middle. The South Shawnigan hill climb, Australian pursuit ably conducted by Dave Steen (Thetis Island) was a contrast. On the long bare exposed slope of Goldstream Heights it is easy to imagine oneself in a Mont Ventoux epic.
Most encouraging was the return, in the Shawnigan race, of Alix Reid (Duncan) whose daughter and friend were amusing at the sign on and finish. Glamorous Conny Strub (Vancouver) always a welcome female presence didn’t let either climb deter her.
Since we have age standards for the Mill Bay climb why not let it too count towards the overall? This might help to get more entries. Let us establish age standards or appropriately reduced Australian pusuit starting gaps for all hill climbs.
Debonair bon vivant skier Rino di Biasio (SE interior BC), age 76, chortled up both ascents with the zest of a Rossini overture and the magnanimity of Dante en route to Beatrice. Art connoisseur David Emery, a sprightly 71, savoured the sensuous curves and swells of the stinging slopes to the siren call of grimpeurs of old. Youth, beauty, sagacity, ardour all manifest in the endless saga of Odyssean realm that is cycle racing – poetry on wheels.
The Comox Valley Cycling Club trio of Ray Wagner, Chuck Sinclair, and Peter Schwirtlich swooped south to scoop team titles in the South Island Masters Hill Climbs. Swift, athletic Peter Stevenson (Duncan) made it look easy winning both climbs dancing on the pedals with a distinctive loping almost prancing style.
Stevenson’s second win at Shawnigan was dramatic. David Mercer had leaped from the “go” on his own 2 minutes after the 70s. Derek Tripp and Ray Wagner left their 50s group (starting 1’30” after the 60s) almost immediately, catching Mercer just after the turn onto Goldstream Heights at c. 6k. David clung on at his limit until about 80m before the false summit, then the thread broke, and 40m later Peter Stevenson rushed by. Peter caught Ray and flagging Derek only in the last 150 metres. That last 200m was very arduous taking lesser riders than Stevenson and Wagner more than 35 seconds.
The short Mill Bay hill climb, an individual time trial, directed by nonchalant Tony Hoar was reminiscent of UK track bike style climbs, except for the tricky descent in the middle. The South Shawnigan hill climb, Australian pursuit ably conducted by Dave Steen (Thetis Island) was a contrast. On the long bare exposed slope of Goldstream Heights it is easy to imagine oneself in a Mont Ventoux epic.
Most encouraging was the return, in the Shawnigan race, of Alix Reid (Duncan) whose daughter and friend were amusing at the sign on and finish. Glamorous Conny Strub (Vancouver) always a welcome female presence didn’t let either climb deter her.
Since we have age standards for the Mill Bay climb why not let it too count towards the overall? This might help to get more entries. Let us establish age standards or appropriately reduced Australian pusuit starting gaps for all hill climbs.
Debonair bon vivant skier Rino di Biasio (SE interior BC), age 76, chortled up both ascents with the zest of a Rossini overture and the magnanimity of Dante en route to Beatrice. Art connoisseur David Emery, a sprightly 71, savoured the sensuous curves and swells of the stinging slopes to the siren call of grimpeurs of old. Youth, beauty, sagacity, ardour all manifest in the endless saga of Odyssean realm that is cycle racing – poetry on wheels.
Nanaimo River Rd. Team Time Trial 2009
Sunday noon 14th June. 68k out and home twice. 12 teams 46 riders.
Greater female presence of riders, supporters, officials, and hosts gave added charm, balance, and completeness to the Tripleshot team time trial. Nature goddesses of river, trees, and flowers elicited by the sun and colour of the event protected and boosted the racers as they confronted the biting, sapping hills. The integrated team of Kim and Joe Gard and Rhonda Callender and Chris Paul invested domestic harmony. The all-female Chicks (Vancouver) were vivid resplendent as parrots or tropical fish. Thanks to the little girl in the Tour de France hat.
Masterly surges by Stuart Lynne (Vancouver) propelled Bill Yearwood’s Team of Elderly Helijets to 1st on age standard (and 3rd on actual). Sleek Stephen Baird teamed with aristocratic Emile de Rosnay, world track man Don Gilmore, and powerhouse chunky Chuck Dethridge to establish a formidable gold mark of 1’ 31’ 34” - 44.6 kph - an upper level 1st cat time on such a course. Although 12th and last to start this elite quartet were first on the road by about 29k passing the fancied Derek Tripp ensemble (off #10) just before the first turn.
Most teams found themselves disintegrating on the hills. But the heavier members would recoup, regroup and inflict their greater momentum on their lighter brethren on the downhill stretches.
The team time trial is the most ballet/artistic-like event in the cycle race repertoire. The streamlined machines (sensitive as thoroughbreds), aero helmets, skin suits give the contestants an aspect of mediaeval knights with crossbows or lances and Star Wars warriors. A combination of high tech, athleticism, and coordination. The ttt encourages the sense of comradeship and fraternity. Let’s have more of them.
The (short-handed) Impromptu Team of Mike Lawless, Malcom Faulkner, and Ryan Calbick delivered a meritorious 5th on age standard (6th actual – only seconds away from 4th place!) giving hope to those who find themselves at the last minute without a team.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Deep Cove Road Race 31st May 2009
Deep Cove Road Race 31st May 2009.
58 k. 9 laps. 49 riders. 2 DNF.
Beautiful weather. 20 degrees, no wind. Gorgeous scenery. Good to see Micheline Ouimet (Victoria) racing again and partner Brock Russell doing another sterling job at the finish line. Most welcome was encouragement from Murray Drew (Victoria) strategically placed halfway up the killer hill. Uplifting to have shouts of support and clapping from the many stalwart, highly visible marshals and some spectators.
Ray Wagner (Courtney) time-trialled away from his 50’s group seemingly without much effort to team up with David Mercer (60s) with about 2 and ¼ laps to go. David was no match for Ray in the finishing burst. 15 seconds down on Mercer was compact, hammering Mike Korb followed 4 seconds later by race companion Steve Bachop. The 40s duo had left their age group behind early on.
An impressive performance from chic Rhonda Callender (Victoria) 10th overall and only 1’ 28’’ down on the winner. Unluckiest rider : Ray Morrison (Kelowna) who broke his chain when he had been relaying nicely with Mercer. This pair had shot away from their 60s group from the gun.
Mightiest sprint of the day : Bill Yearwood (Vancouver) taking 7th place in front of John Guthrie. As striking as any pro- Classic elbow to elbow finish. Check out that flat back and powerful shoulders style in Duane Martindale photos #120 – 124. Most festive photos : Roland Buehler #178 – 180. Guitars Plus proprietor and former Edmonton track star Roland is beginning to reactivate his racing legs with encouragement from jazz musician Casey Ryder and hack guitarist/vocalist David Mercer. This trio might put some up beat tempo into the race scene. Also worth a look : the sprint for 11th place between Aaron Dusseault, Steve Munro, and Larry Wilson – photos # 131 – 135.
Great to see lawyer Gerry Loster pounding up the hill making up for lost track time. Also glad to find Wayne Walker and Vaughn Marshall out as cycling supporters – but next time we’ll rope you into the race! Oldest rider, in the 75 – 79 category, Robert Dumalanede lent Continental flair to the event.
An attractive feature of this short circuit with strenuous hill is that after a few laps there are colourful riders all over the course. So there is always someone to ride with. A pity so many riders left before the end of the awards. Personally I find the post-race socializing the best part. Maybe we need a post-race barbecue/beer/coffee meeting place with large draw prize (must be there to claim) to encourage riders to stick around and get to know one another and families more.
Another suggestion : special prize/recognition/incentive (own table?) for non-elite riders in each age category – those who are over 26 minutes for a 10 mile tt say.
Reduced starting gaps (so that the fast 60s would not get mingled with the 30s) worked very well though perhaps 8 laps might have been fairer than 9 had some of the fast 40s and 50s not been absent. But still you can’t please everyone and age standards and handicaps can never be precise.
A discordant note in the event was one community member getting steamed up because his parking at the Deep Cove Store was inconvenienced. Perhaps we could enlist the support of the store by renting their picturesque garden patio for a post-race party. Once again thanks to Sidney Velo and especially Larry Pommen for keeping vibrant this noble, multifaceted, challenging sport.
58 k. 9 laps. 49 riders. 2 DNF.
Beautiful weather. 20 degrees, no wind. Gorgeous scenery. Good to see Micheline Ouimet (Victoria) racing again and partner Brock Russell doing another sterling job at the finish line. Most welcome was encouragement from Murray Drew (Victoria) strategically placed halfway up the killer hill. Uplifting to have shouts of support and clapping from the many stalwart, highly visible marshals and some spectators.
Ray Wagner (Courtney) time-trialled away from his 50’s group seemingly without much effort to team up with David Mercer (60s) with about 2 and ¼ laps to go. David was no match for Ray in the finishing burst. 15 seconds down on Mercer was compact, hammering Mike Korb followed 4 seconds later by race companion Steve Bachop. The 40s duo had left their age group behind early on.
An impressive performance from chic Rhonda Callender (Victoria) 10th overall and only 1’ 28’’ down on the winner. Unluckiest rider : Ray Morrison (Kelowna) who broke his chain when he had been relaying nicely with Mercer. This pair had shot away from their 60s group from the gun.
Mightiest sprint of the day : Bill Yearwood (Vancouver) taking 7th place in front of John Guthrie. As striking as any pro- Classic elbow to elbow finish. Check out that flat back and powerful shoulders style in Duane Martindale photos #120 – 124. Most festive photos : Roland Buehler #178 – 180. Guitars Plus proprietor and former Edmonton track star Roland is beginning to reactivate his racing legs with encouragement from jazz musician Casey Ryder and hack guitarist/vocalist David Mercer. This trio might put some up beat tempo into the race scene. Also worth a look : the sprint for 11th place between Aaron Dusseault, Steve Munro, and Larry Wilson – photos # 131 – 135.
Great to see lawyer Gerry Loster pounding up the hill making up for lost track time. Also glad to find Wayne Walker and Vaughn Marshall out as cycling supporters – but next time we’ll rope you into the race! Oldest rider, in the 75 – 79 category, Robert Dumalanede lent Continental flair to the event.
An attractive feature of this short circuit with strenuous hill is that after a few laps there are colourful riders all over the course. So there is always someone to ride with. A pity so many riders left before the end of the awards. Personally I find the post-race socializing the best part. Maybe we need a post-race barbecue/beer/coffee meeting place with large draw prize (must be there to claim) to encourage riders to stick around and get to know one another and families more.
Another suggestion : special prize/recognition/incentive (own table?) for non-elite riders in each age category – those who are over 26 minutes for a 10 mile tt say.
Reduced starting gaps (so that the fast 60s would not get mingled with the 30s) worked very well though perhaps 8 laps might have been fairer than 9 had some of the fast 40s and 50s not been absent. But still you can’t please everyone and age standards and handicaps can never be precise.
A discordant note in the event was one community member getting steamed up because his parking at the Deep Cove Store was inconvenienced. Perhaps we could enlist the support of the store by renting their picturesque garden patio for a post-race party. Once again thanks to Sidney Velo and especially Larry Pommen for keeping vibrant this noble, multifaceted, challenging sport.
Age Handicapped Criteriums
Scoring Criteriums for Overall Points Using Age Categories. For BC Masters Cycling Association.
Using the Duke Point Crits May 23-4 2009 as an example.
Applying my minimalist proposal : 3 crits so divide usual overall points by 3. Give ½ point bonus for each rider of younger 5 year age category beaten.
60+ Crit.
1. David Mercer 3.33 plus 0.5 bonus = 3.83
2. Dave Emery 2.33 .. 1.5 .. = 3.83
3. Doug Hutcheon 1.66 .. 0.5 .. = 2.16
4. Chris Hahlen 1 no bonus = 1.0
5. Harry Balke 0.66 no bonus
45-59 Crit.
1. Chris Cameron 3.33 plus 0.5 bonus = 3.83
2. Bill Yearwood 2.33 .. 1.5 .. = 3.83
3. Mike Sevcov 1.66 .. 1.5 .. = 3.16
4. Ray Wagner 1 .. 0.5 .. = 1.0
5. Stephen Muir 0.66 no bonus = 0.66
6. Malcolm Faulkner
30-44 Crit.
1. Mike Korb 3.33 plus 0.5 = 3.83
2. Aaron Dusseault 2.33 plus 0.5 = 2.83
3. Louis Watson 1.66 no bonus = 1.66
4. Casey Ryder 1.0 no bonus = 1.0
Thus there would have been a 5 way tie for 1st overall in the whole field. Winners in each of the 3 crits. receive only slightly more than 1/3 of the overall points they would get in a full-field combined road race or time trial. Total overall points awarded would have been 32.62 compared with 27 for an ordinary road race or time trial. Total overall points awarded for the crits would be reduced to 28.4 by making the bonus point for each rider of younger 5 year age category beaten be 1/3 point instead of ½ point. We could also make the overall points for a field divided into 3 crits be 30% of the normal rather than 1/3 to ‘even up’ the scoring.
This overall scoring system for crits. can be applied whether we divide the total field into 2, 3, or 4 separate criteriums.
The idea is that good performance should be rewarded no matter what type of event. A good crit. ride (or hillclimb) is just as demanding as a good road race or time trial.
Bonus points are necessary to give a reward to riders who may not be able to get in the top five because they are in a crit which includes riders who are 15 or more years younger, e.g. a 69 year old in a crit for riders age 50+ who places only 8th but beats 5 riders in age categories 50-54, 55-59, and 60-64 surely deserves something.
Using the Duke Point Crits May 23-4 2009 as an example.
Applying my minimalist proposal : 3 crits so divide usual overall points by 3. Give ½ point bonus for each rider of younger 5 year age category beaten.
60+ Crit.
1. David Mercer 3.33 plus 0.5 bonus = 3.83
2. Dave Emery 2.33 .. 1.5 .. = 3.83
3. Doug Hutcheon 1.66 .. 0.5 .. = 2.16
4. Chris Hahlen 1 no bonus = 1.0
5. Harry Balke 0.66 no bonus
45-59 Crit.
1. Chris Cameron 3.33 plus 0.5 bonus = 3.83
2. Bill Yearwood 2.33 .. 1.5 .. = 3.83
3. Mike Sevcov 1.66 .. 1.5 .. = 3.16
4. Ray Wagner 1 .. 0.5 .. = 1.0
5. Stephen Muir 0.66 no bonus = 0.66
6. Malcolm Faulkner
30-44 Crit.
1. Mike Korb 3.33 plus 0.5 = 3.83
2. Aaron Dusseault 2.33 plus 0.5 = 2.83
3. Louis Watson 1.66 no bonus = 1.66
4. Casey Ryder 1.0 no bonus = 1.0
Thus there would have been a 5 way tie for 1st overall in the whole field. Winners in each of the 3 crits. receive only slightly more than 1/3 of the overall points they would get in a full-field combined road race or time trial. Total overall points awarded would have been 32.62 compared with 27 for an ordinary road race or time trial. Total overall points awarded for the crits would be reduced to 28.4 by making the bonus point for each rider of younger 5 year age category beaten be 1/3 point instead of ½ point. We could also make the overall points for a field divided into 3 crits be 30% of the normal rather than 1/3 to ‘even up’ the scoring.
This overall scoring system for crits. can be applied whether we divide the total field into 2, 3, or 4 separate criteriums.
The idea is that good performance should be rewarded no matter what type of event. A good crit. ride (or hillclimb) is just as demanding as a good road race or time trial.
Bonus points are necessary to give a reward to riders who may not be able to get in the top five because they are in a crit which includes riders who are 15 or more years younger, e.g. a 69 year old in a crit for riders age 50+ who places only 8th but beats 5 riders in age categories 50-54, 55-59, and 60-64 surely deserves something.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Cedar Weekend Cycle Race Classic Vancouver Island BC
Cedar Weekend Cycle Race Classic May 23-4 2009
Four officials and ten riders earned the prestigious Laurels of Cedar Award seeing through all 3 events from beginning to end. The worthy officials : Bruce Falk (Victoria), Dave Kenney (Nanaimo), Peter McCaffery (Nanaimo), Duane Martindale (Victoria). The versatile, dedicated riders : Harry Balke (Pender), Dave Emery (Victoria), Chris Hahlen (Vancouver), Doug Hutcheon (Vancouver), David Mercer (Victoria), Stephen Muir (Kelowna), Casey Ryder (Victoria), Mike Sevcov (Duncan), Ray Wagner (Comox), Bill Yearwood (Richmond).
The racing was elegant, forceful, and spirited. The courses were gems, the weather lovely, the scenery breathtaking. Set aside time apart from the racing to visit beautiful spectacular spots like Jack Point or Cable Bay.
Many were the heroic deeds. Suffice to relate a few to give the flavour. In the Saturday Cedar road race Ray Wagner dramatic as his namesake launched himself off the front alone with about 3 laps to go. Noble and valiant yet consumed in the fire of the peloton with over 1 lap left.
Jaunty, smiling Chris Cameron (Nanaimo) ever ready to churn at the front while intimidating other riders with his Martian earpieces. Duathlete Hugh Trenchard (Victoria) again doing a powerful solo ride with his supple, loping style to take the 40s crown in the road race. Soothing tired limbs in the luxury of a post-race hot shower on Saturday.
Four officials and ten riders earned the prestigious Laurels of Cedar Award seeing through all 3 events from beginning to end. The worthy officials : Bruce Falk (Victoria), Dave Kenney (Nanaimo), Peter McCaffery (Nanaimo), Duane Martindale (Victoria). The versatile, dedicated riders : Harry Balke (Pender), Dave Emery (Victoria), Chris Hahlen (Vancouver), Doug Hutcheon (Vancouver), David Mercer (Victoria), Stephen Muir (Kelowna), Casey Ryder (Victoria), Mike Sevcov (Duncan), Ray Wagner (Comox), Bill Yearwood (Richmond).
The racing was elegant, forceful, and spirited. The courses were gems, the weather lovely, the scenery breathtaking. Set aside time apart from the racing to visit beautiful spectacular spots like Jack Point or Cable Bay.
Many were the heroic deeds. Suffice to relate a few to give the flavour. In the Saturday Cedar road race Ray Wagner dramatic as his namesake launched himself off the front alone with about 3 laps to go. Noble and valiant yet consumed in the fire of the peloton with over 1 lap left.
Jaunty, smiling Chris Cameron (Nanaimo) ever ready to churn at the front while intimidating other riders with his Martian earpieces. Duathlete Hugh Trenchard (Victoria) again doing a powerful solo ride with his supple, loping style to take the 40s crown in the road race. Soothing tired limbs in the luxury of a post-race hot shower on Saturday.
Don Gilmore (Shawnigan Lake) aka Aeroboy (also Arrowman) with his trademark stealth fighter jet low-profile lowering his own course record to 20’ 09” in the Sunday morning Nanaimo Lakes Rd. 15k time trial. Photographer Duane Martindale blowing the dust off his neglected racing machine and still managing a very nimble time for 3rd on age standard.
In the Sunday afternoon Duke Point Criteriums : Dave Emery celebrating his 71st birthday by staying with the 60s and surging to take the sprint for 2nd place. Bill Yearwood ploughing up the hill in a Mighty (sic) finishing sprint to narrowly miss 1st. David Mercer and Mike Korb (Victoria) blasting off the front of their respective crits as soon as the 2 neutral laps were over to pull steadily away alone. Aaron Dusseault (Victoria) weighing in after his teammate with his specialty power kick-punch finish. Bill, again, marking the end of the weekend’s racing with a low-flying helicopter salute.
Hypothetical overall winners – all 3 events - of the Cedar Bowl were David Mercer, Mike Sevcov, and Bill Yearwood.
Dave Kenney currently leads in the organizer closest to nervous breakdown table. David Mercer a near second, but Dave Steen still in with a chance.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Executive compensation and motivation
1. Two sub-claims. Some people claim the very high compensation given executives of large corporations is a necessary evil. Evil because there is something inherently unjust, grotesque, perverse, harmful about giving luxury purchasing power far beyond what anyone needs for a wonderful, fulfilled life to a few while hundreds of millions are not allowed enough for clean water, food, basic medical care, hygiene, and education. Necessary because without a system in which top executives receive astronomical salaries and bonuses : a) Productivity and hence average standard of living will be lower b) Basic freedoms will be curtailed. Vast inequities in wealth are the price you have to pay for a free society; better poverty and starvation than red. In this feuilleton I just look at sub-claim a).
2. The assumption behind a) is that extremely high compensation is a necessary condition of attracting capable people to top executive positions in large corporations. The golden carrot hypothesis. There has to be exceptionally high remuneration otherwise talented people won't take on the training for, and responsibility and hard work of, executive positions. As with many underlying assumptions behind views or positions in which people are emotionally invested as soon as you try to state the hypothesis clearly its absurdity becomes apparent. Does anyone seriously believe that most top university graduates would rather clean toilets, work on an assembly line, drive a cab, be a shop assistant, on welfare than help run a hospital, airline, automobile factory, bank, crown corporation, government ministry, or university? Can it be maintained that running a large corporation well requires esoteric expertise as difficult to acquire as brain surgery, being a concert pianist, and flying a jumbo jet combined? As Peter Cook implied in a 'Beyond the Fringe' satire : which would you rather - be a judge or work in a coal mine?
3. Sub-claim a) only seems to make sense because of a confusion between two different points about human motivation and money. The first point is that high material rewards are a powerful motivator. The second but different point is that once people get used to a high reward they may require an even higher one to remain motivated. Thus, a person receiving high compensation may be inclined to move for an even higher reward if he/she can get it. In other words, many human beings have an almost insatiable capacity for greed (or power, status, sex).
This second point about motivation and money, though, does not entail the need for extremely high compensation for top executives or anyone else (sports or entertainment stars, concert violinists, politicians, judges, doctors, lawyers, etc.) This is because there is an almost endless supply of talented capable people who are very motivated by high though not astronomical remuneration. $200,000 a year, say, may not seem that high when you have been making it for a few years. So what?! There is a wealth (sic) of people with exceptional ability and expertise to whom that $200,000 represents a fantastic inducement. If a Canadian administrator/executive/entrepreneur can double his $200,000 a year by moving to the USA, let him(her) go, and good riddance. There are lots of others not noticeably in any way inferior in qualifications, ability, expertise, enterprise, initiative, humanity, people skills, sensitivity, understanding who will gladly take his(her) place.
4. The argument for extremely high executive compensation may still seem to retain some strength because of a further confusion between being de facto top of an organisation and being the best in or for that organisation. These two are quite different. There are many documented instances of people in top positions in organisations - corporations, government, universities, banks, the military - being inefficient, incompetent, unbalanced, lackling in people skills, emotional awareness, etc. (being selfish, greedy, corrupt, tyrannical, psychopathic is another matter). Incompetent or mediocre people can get to the top because of nepotism, favoritism, religion, getting in when times were easier, being a sycophant, backstabber, etc.
5. Here those arguing in favour of, or the need for, very high executive compensation may fall back on the survival of the fittest argument. Those at the very top of an organisation must, it is said, be the best (and deserving of all they can get) because they rose to the top in open competition. The flaw in this argument is that the notion of capitalist free market open competition is a myth. The point of having power in society is to prevent open competition, to exclude others who may be smarter, more talented, shrewd, far-sighted, incisive, with deeper understanding than you from doing your job better and for less money. People who have power - the executive class, lawyers, economist/technocrats, professional associations, trade unions - continually erect artificial barriers to prevent others competing with them and bringing down their income. People fight to protect their own privileges and give their friends and family members an unfair advantage.
6. 'The bigger the reward the more the incentive.' This sounds plausible only if you think of one individual and a limitless supply of reward. But we are dealing with providing incentives/inducement/motivation for thousands of people at a time to help bring about a more prosperous, efficient, beneficent organisation (and the total reward on offer is necessarily limited). Another weakness, then, in the golden carrot hypothesis favouring colossal remuneration for executives is that it assumes a winner takes all reward provides better incentive overall than spreading the rewards around. This is highly dubious. Most talented people know it is highly unlikely they will be in the top few no matter how hard they work (you need luck, etc.) They would be more motivated by providing instead of a handful of astronomical rewards a much greater number of moderately high rewards for being in the top 10%.
7. A related weakness in the golden carrot hypothesis is the equally implausible view that the prosperity, efficiency, well-being of an organisation (corporation, society) depends wholly or mainly on having a few brilliant (perhaps ruthless) people in the top few positions.
8. In summary : even if you assume financial greed is the greatest motivator for human beings the argument for extremely high executive compensation fails. Of course the existence of great artists, writers, composers, scientists, thinkers, moral teachers, etc. shows that it is false that financial greed is the only strong human motivator.
9. Psychological basis for unreasonable beliefs. As with most social, philosophical, political, religious, moral, or aesthetic positions the basis for the view that huge executive compensation is somehow warranted, necessary, or unavoidable is emotional not rational. You can't make someone give up an unreasonable position just by appealing to logic and evidence. Perhaps those who support or condone astronomical compensation for executives of large corporations (and are not themselves executives or super rich!) do not like to admit that they are being ripped off by, are dupes of, the executive class. Many still cling to the fantasy that everyone (all 6 billion of us!) can be a millionaire. As though the planet could sustain everyone living at the level of the top 10 0r 20% of Canadians. Maybe many fear that if the compensation for top executives is limited they may be next. Someone might point out that their compensation or wealth too is unfairly and unnecessarily high (especially by world standards).
2. The assumption behind a) is that extremely high compensation is a necessary condition of attracting capable people to top executive positions in large corporations. The golden carrot hypothesis. There has to be exceptionally high remuneration otherwise talented people won't take on the training for, and responsibility and hard work of, executive positions. As with many underlying assumptions behind views or positions in which people are emotionally invested as soon as you try to state the hypothesis clearly its absurdity becomes apparent. Does anyone seriously believe that most top university graduates would rather clean toilets, work on an assembly line, drive a cab, be a shop assistant, on welfare than help run a hospital, airline, automobile factory, bank, crown corporation, government ministry, or university? Can it be maintained that running a large corporation well requires esoteric expertise as difficult to acquire as brain surgery, being a concert pianist, and flying a jumbo jet combined? As Peter Cook implied in a 'Beyond the Fringe' satire : which would you rather - be a judge or work in a coal mine?
3. Sub-claim a) only seems to make sense because of a confusion between two different points about human motivation and money. The first point is that high material rewards are a powerful motivator. The second but different point is that once people get used to a high reward they may require an even higher one to remain motivated. Thus, a person receiving high compensation may be inclined to move for an even higher reward if he/she can get it. In other words, many human beings have an almost insatiable capacity for greed (or power, status, sex).
This second point about motivation and money, though, does not entail the need for extremely high compensation for top executives or anyone else (sports or entertainment stars, concert violinists, politicians, judges, doctors, lawyers, etc.) This is because there is an almost endless supply of talented capable people who are very motivated by high though not astronomical remuneration. $200,000 a year, say, may not seem that high when you have been making it for a few years. So what?! There is a wealth (sic) of people with exceptional ability and expertise to whom that $200,000 represents a fantastic inducement. If a Canadian administrator/executive/entrepreneur can double his $200,000 a year by moving to the USA, let him(her) go, and good riddance. There are lots of others not noticeably in any way inferior in qualifications, ability, expertise, enterprise, initiative, humanity, people skills, sensitivity, understanding who will gladly take his(her) place.
4. The argument for extremely high executive compensation may still seem to retain some strength because of a further confusion between being de facto top of an organisation and being the best in or for that organisation. These two are quite different. There are many documented instances of people in top positions in organisations - corporations, government, universities, banks, the military - being inefficient, incompetent, unbalanced, lackling in people skills, emotional awareness, etc. (being selfish, greedy, corrupt, tyrannical, psychopathic is another matter). Incompetent or mediocre people can get to the top because of nepotism, favoritism, religion, getting in when times were easier, being a sycophant, backstabber, etc.
5. Here those arguing in favour of, or the need for, very high executive compensation may fall back on the survival of the fittest argument. Those at the very top of an organisation must, it is said, be the best (and deserving of all they can get) because they rose to the top in open competition. The flaw in this argument is that the notion of capitalist free market open competition is a myth. The point of having power in society is to prevent open competition, to exclude others who may be smarter, more talented, shrewd, far-sighted, incisive, with deeper understanding than you from doing your job better and for less money. People who have power - the executive class, lawyers, economist/technocrats, professional associations, trade unions - continually erect artificial barriers to prevent others competing with them and bringing down their income. People fight to protect their own privileges and give their friends and family members an unfair advantage.
6. 'The bigger the reward the more the incentive.' This sounds plausible only if you think of one individual and a limitless supply of reward. But we are dealing with providing incentives/inducement/motivation for thousands of people at a time to help bring about a more prosperous, efficient, beneficent organisation (and the total reward on offer is necessarily limited). Another weakness, then, in the golden carrot hypothesis favouring colossal remuneration for executives is that it assumes a winner takes all reward provides better incentive overall than spreading the rewards around. This is highly dubious. Most talented people know it is highly unlikely they will be in the top few no matter how hard they work (you need luck, etc.) They would be more motivated by providing instead of a handful of astronomical rewards a much greater number of moderately high rewards for being in the top 10%.
7. A related weakness in the golden carrot hypothesis is the equally implausible view that the prosperity, efficiency, well-being of an organisation (corporation, society) depends wholly or mainly on having a few brilliant (perhaps ruthless) people in the top few positions.
8. In summary : even if you assume financial greed is the greatest motivator for human beings the argument for extremely high executive compensation fails. Of course the existence of great artists, writers, composers, scientists, thinkers, moral teachers, etc. shows that it is false that financial greed is the only strong human motivator.
9. Psychological basis for unreasonable beliefs. As with most social, philosophical, political, religious, moral, or aesthetic positions the basis for the view that huge executive compensation is somehow warranted, necessary, or unavoidable is emotional not rational. You can't make someone give up an unreasonable position just by appealing to logic and evidence. Perhaps those who support or condone astronomical compensation for executives of large corporations (and are not themselves executives or super rich!) do not like to admit that they are being ripped off by, are dupes of, the executive class. Many still cling to the fantasy that everyone (all 6 billion of us!) can be a millionaire. As though the planet could sustain everyone living at the level of the top 10 0r 20% of Canadians. Maybe many fear that if the compensation for top executives is limited they may be next. Someone might point out that their compensation or wealth too is unfairly and unnecessarily high (especially by world standards).
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Cycling legitimacy and cycle racing
I began cycling - commuting, shopping, touring, recreation, a bit of racing - about 55 years ago in the UK. It amazes me that apparently sane, intelligent, well-informed, able-bodied, reasonably healthy people continue to prefer using expensive, polluting, difficult to park private automobiles, and sitting in traffic jams to getting around on a bicycle. The psychology underlying the hostility of many motorists and police to cyclists still arouses my curiosity. Furthermore, I remain puzzled by the fact that thousands will enter for a 10k run (or even marathon) yet you are lucky to get 40 for a bike race.
I submit these matters are connected. If cycle racing were an accepted part of school athletics cyclists in general would receive more respect. Cyclists are perceived correctly as a threat to the dominant car-cult, affluent, consumerist lifestyle, and the mindset that economic growth and jobs rather than social and individual well-being are the main political goals. However, if cycle racing were an accepted school sport it would be more difficult to dismiss cyclists as anti-social cranks/weirdos, or loutish scoff-laws. It would be more difficult to frame racing cyclists as drug addict fanatics.
To some extent cyclists have become the 'other' whom it is still acceptable to objectify, discriminate against, belittle, mock, marginalise, disempower, even hate (partly replacing homosexuals, atheists, women, ethnic 'minorities', the disabled, the lower classes as targets of/scapegoats for pent-up inner self-dissatisfaction and feelings of inadequacy giving rise to rage reinforced by false sense of entitlement and cult of victimhood). Cyclists embody for many in affluent society, in ways in which running (soccer, tennis, skiing, etc.) do not, an alternate lifestyle which questions values about which people already feel uneasy but are not yet ready to examine and modify. Cyclists take the challenge to car cult affluence/consumerism to the streets, malls, and parking lots.
I believe the conflict between West Shore Parks and Recreation and the Greater Victoria Velodrome Association for instance - over demolition of, or access to, the Juan de Fuca Velodrome in part has this underlying psychodynamic. Cycling represents low income, poverty (can't afford a car), low status, and hence is something to be feared and shunned. In addition cyclists arouse resentment. They are perceived as people who think they are superior : more educated, enlightened, liberated, healthier, greener, more independent/self-sufficient. It could be socially beneficial to present cycling and cycle racing in a different way : as something trendy/cool associated with open critical thinking, emotional awareness, and a vigorous healthy counterculture.
As a member of Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition, and BC Cycling Coalition as well as Vancouver Island Coordinator for BC Masters/Seniors Cycling Association I am committed to finding safe, fun forms of cycle racing which are attractive to average athletes (any age, female or male) looking for fitness, exhilaration, fellowship who are constrained by other interests and commitments. Also, I have founded an unusual cycling club which combines interest in cycling and cycle racing with interest in philosophy, social issues, and mental health. A cyclosophy or velosophy club you might say. One reason why I advocate cycle racing is that I have found it to be a useful aid (superior in some ways to running, swimming, or cross-country skiing) in better management of tendencies to anxiety and depression. Check out www.velociraptors.ca and bcmasterscycling.net . Apologies for my beginner's computer and internet clumsiness. Safe cycling! May 15 2009
I submit these matters are connected. If cycle racing were an accepted part of school athletics cyclists in general would receive more respect. Cyclists are perceived correctly as a threat to the dominant car-cult, affluent, consumerist lifestyle, and the mindset that economic growth and jobs rather than social and individual well-being are the main political goals. However, if cycle racing were an accepted school sport it would be more difficult to dismiss cyclists as anti-social cranks/weirdos, or loutish scoff-laws. It would be more difficult to frame racing cyclists as drug addict fanatics.
To some extent cyclists have become the 'other' whom it is still acceptable to objectify, discriminate against, belittle, mock, marginalise, disempower, even hate (partly replacing homosexuals, atheists, women, ethnic 'minorities', the disabled, the lower classes as targets of/scapegoats for pent-up inner self-dissatisfaction and feelings of inadequacy giving rise to rage reinforced by false sense of entitlement and cult of victimhood). Cyclists embody for many in affluent society, in ways in which running (soccer, tennis, skiing, etc.) do not, an alternate lifestyle which questions values about which people already feel uneasy but are not yet ready to examine and modify. Cyclists take the challenge to car cult affluence/consumerism to the streets, malls, and parking lots.
I believe the conflict between West Shore Parks and Recreation and the Greater Victoria Velodrome Association for instance - over demolition of, or access to, the Juan de Fuca Velodrome in part has this underlying psychodynamic. Cycling represents low income, poverty (can't afford a car), low status, and hence is something to be feared and shunned. In addition cyclists arouse resentment. They are perceived as people who think they are superior : more educated, enlightened, liberated, healthier, greener, more independent/self-sufficient. It could be socially beneficial to present cycling and cycle racing in a different way : as something trendy/cool associated with open critical thinking, emotional awareness, and a vigorous healthy counterculture.
As a member of Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition, and BC Cycling Coalition as well as Vancouver Island Coordinator for BC Masters/Seniors Cycling Association I am committed to finding safe, fun forms of cycle racing which are attractive to average athletes (any age, female or male) looking for fitness, exhilaration, fellowship who are constrained by other interests and commitments. Also, I have founded an unusual cycling club which combines interest in cycling and cycle racing with interest in philosophy, social issues, and mental health. A cyclosophy or velosophy club you might say. One reason why I advocate cycle racing is that I have found it to be a useful aid (superior in some ways to running, swimming, or cross-country skiing) in better management of tendencies to anxiety and depression. Check out www.velociraptors.ca and bcmasterscycling.net . Apologies for my beginner's computer and internet clumsiness. Safe cycling! May 15 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)