Dr. Velociraptor

BCMCA Goals and Structure 2

2011-09-03T15:43:00.000-07:00

Additions to my proposals for the BCMCA constitution for discussion (see Dr. Velociraptor 29/8/11) as follows:

To support and provide training for BC Seniors Games and other national and international seniors games;
To support cycle racing as part of schools athletic programs;
To promote grass track racing on municipal or school board grounds as a safe venue;
To encourage the development of safe closed circuits for cycle racing;
To support velodromes;
To promote and encourage commuting, touring, shopping, delivery, and transporting by bicycle.

To promote cycling and cycle racing as an environmental, health, and community benefit.

To support worthy charities through cycle races and fun rides.

To change our official name to BC Seniors/Masters Cycling Association.

BCMCA Goals and Structure

2011-08-29T15:30:00.000-07:00

Due to the informal nature of the BCMCA we lack a clear accessible statement of its constitution and bylaws. BCMCA is not a registered BC non-profit society. The constitution and bylaws of a registered BC non-profit society have to comply with certain criteria.

Different BCMCA members will have different views on the philosophy and goals of the BCMCA and how these can best be realized. My own suggestions, for discussion, are as follows.

Become (again) a registered non-profit society – eligibility for government grants; enhanced image for municipalities, Ministry of Transportation, sponsors, etc.; criteria for governance transparent.

Constitution. (Purposes).
To promote and organize lifelong recreational cycle racing for people of all ages and ability levels.
To promote athletic fellowship, exhilaration, enjoyment, social, and personal well-being through helping with, and participating in, cycle racing.
To honor the following: performing community service through contribution to cycle racing; maintaining athletic ability in, and participation in, cycle racing despite aging, genetic endowment, medical limitations, and limited training time; displaying chivalry, fairness, and concern for others while racing – winning is not the main thing.

Special emphasis (not necessarily exclusive) on the following:
Cycle racing for Seniors (55+) and Masters (40+);

Australian Pursuit road races (staggered starts are less disruptive of traffic flow and hence more acceptable to municipalities and Ministry of Transportation than mass start);
Age standards and results and awards based on age standards;
Starting gaps in Australian Pursuit based on age;
Classification of riders in the main competition into A (elite) and B (regular) with separate awards for the latter;
Development of comprehensive age standards and starting gaps for all races not just 50 – 75 k (‘2 hour’) road races;
Development of plausible criterium age-related points scoring;
Provide incentive for under 40’s to participate in the main race;
Provision of B races of shorter length, e.g. 40 k, starting just after the main race, for those with a medical condition or just out of shape;
Provide incentives for people to marshall.

To give due weight to the judgement of long-time organizers, administrators, and founders.

Bylaws. (Structure and Governance).
Directors: President; Secretary/Treasurer; Results Coordinator – main competition; Web Master; Awards Coordinator – subsidiary competitions; at least 1 director from each of the recognized geographical regions (currently 3 – Island, Lower Mainland, Interior).

No restriction on number of terms served.

Members to submit proposals and suggestions to directors at any time. Directors to discuss amongst themselves and make recommendations to the membership before a general vote.

AGM (and social) to be held outside of racing season, e.g. late October, in Greater Vancouver, e.g. Delta, - accessibility to members from Interior and Island.

Motion for 2011 AGM: To strike a committee consisting of the aforementioned 5 officials plus Olaf Stana, and Ray Morrison, of the Interior to discuss BCMCA Constitution and Bylaws, members’ suggestions and proposals, and to report back to the general membership with recommendations by March 21st 2012.

The Meaning of Life

2011-05-17T12:26:00.000-07:00

Standardly, when people talk about the meaning of life they are not particularly clear about what they mean – they don’t mean anything very definite or clear-cut. Rather, as usually happens with terms and concepts with a heavy philosophical weight, they have something rather woolly or nebulous in mind which nevertheless seems very important. Perceived philosophical depth is typically inversely proportional to clear-cut cognitive, factual content. Use of loose or opaque language is often a substitute for clear, testable thinking.

‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reasonable, somewhat objectively verifiable purpose in life which will bring a fairly lasting, resilient sense of fulfillment, validation, of your life being worthwhile. ‘Meaning of life’ is conceptually connected with self-validation, self-worth, and also with finding comfort and consolation. The question of ‘the meaning of life’ arises when your own life or contribution seems paltry given your talents and opportunities, you have made terrible mistakes, your own prospects for happiness seem rather hopeless, your present situation is not good, you have not accomplished anything like what you thought you would.

‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reason/justification for going on living even if your own prospects for fun, enjoyment, happiness, status, wealth, romance, health are not good. What sort of lasting inner fulfillment, satisfaction, contentment, peace of mind, together with making a contribution which others could reasonably judge as worthwhile, are still available to you even if you lack some of the common goods, benefits, and privileges? ‘Meaning of life’ as a psychological problem is not just academic, theoretical doubt that human achievement in general is significant in the cosmos. It is doubt that one’s own life has been or still is worthwhile.

If you are fairly happy, comfortable, enjoying life, healthy, with good prospects of continuing in this state the question of the meaning of life is not of great concern. You might admit that you are not contributing much to higher values and that the cosmos is indifferent to higher values but this does not disturb your equanimity. If you have money, health, status, and love it is fairly easy to laugh at life being ultimately rather pointless. Moreover, if you have money, health, status, and love it is easy to convince yourself you are making a good contribution (living a meaningful life) whether you are a civil servant, bank manager, sell cars or bottled water. It is easy to be the smug, amused, calm philosopher above material concerns when you have nearly a million dollars in assets and are in reasonable health. It is much easier to find happiness or meaning in life if you have money and good health.

‘Meaning of life’ is in part about how to be happy if you lack some of the common aids to happiness. But it is also about questioning the importance given to common aids to happiness. Sure, money and status – recognition, appreciation from others for one’s achievements, efforts, contribution – are important, but should these be the main goals in life or society? Is the main point in life to have ever-increasing economic growth, material standard of living, while ensuring that the poorest have the basics?

Examining the meaning of life even questions whether happiness itself – maximizing one’s own happiness and allowing others to do the same – is the sole intrinsic good, the only real worthwhile-making feature of life. Isn’t there more to a full, enriching, meaningful life than just the pursuit of happiness (let alone just the pursuit of wealth, fame, and pleasures)? Where do art, literature, philosophy, intellectual attainment, promotion of justice, kindness, and animal rights fit in? Is it better that everyone be satisfied consumers or that there be some dissatisfied Socrates?

Finding a meaning to life seems to have two components. On the one hand finding inner happiness, contentment. On the other a justifiable belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values – that you are doing something worthwhile. The two are empirically, causally, psychologically connected. You are likely to have a lasting inner happiness if and only if you have a reasonably well-founded belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values. If you find a lasting inner happiness you are likely to find life has sufficient meaning – your contribution is good enough.

Human beings have remarkable capacities for self-deception, rationalization, denial, delusion, obsession, fantasy, repression, suppression, idealizing, demonizing, etc. – protective, coping, psychological defence mechanisms. Thus, it is possible for an intelligent, well-informed person to be mistaken that she is making a significant contribution to higher values (or the best contribution she could make given her circumstances). Consider a woman who gives up a promising career as a musician and music teacher to a) watch tv soap operas; b) be a housewife; c) strive for a manicured lawn and spotless, neat household; d) play golf; d) run a marathon in under 3 hours; e) care for a severely brain damaged child; f) run a cat’s home; g) join a fundamentalist religious cult. Virginia Woolf and Sylvia Plath may have been mistaken in thinking that their lives were no longer worthwhile and that suicide was their best option.

People do make serious mistakes about what will make them happy. They may be mistaken about the source of their happiness/unhappiness. Perhaps you can even be mistaken about the extent to which you are happy/unhappy. There are layers of feelings, desires, thoughts, misgivings, doubts, hopes, regrets, anxieties, disappointments, conflicts, etc. and one can focus on the good or the bad.

Many assume that the meaning of life must consist in some overarching purpose we can ascribe to the cosmos, life, or human life in particular (apart from common biological drives and processes). This could be the conscious intent or desires of a creator God, or the inexorable development towards some higher goal of an underlying divine power, life force, or historical process. But if there is no overarching pre-ordained goal to human life it does not follow that life is meaningless, that objective meaning cannot be given to human life in general and your life in particular, that there are not some states or activities (available even to those who are relatively poor, in poor health, aging, or disadvantaged) which fairly objectively make life meaningful, worth living. To ask ‘Why are we here, what is life for?’ in the sense of what is the overarching, embedded purpose apart from biological drives is the fallacy of the false question like ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’

It might be there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos or the emergence of higher consciousness or higher values. This just happened. Perhaps, too, there is no inevitable cosmic progress or evolution towards full realization of goodness (or reabsorption into a godhead). Again, thirdly, it may be that pursuit of higher values does not lead eventually, after death or rebirths perhaps, to some kind of personal reward – heaven or more abstractly nirvana. Even without these religious props, though, it is possible objectively to find meaning in life which does not consist simply in having as much personal pleasure, fun, enjoyment, or even happiness as possible.

God is very much a human construct rooted in human psychology good and bad. There may be healthier, albeit more challenging, ways of finding meaning in life than through religion. The standard God is a Jekyll and Hyde creature. On the one hand benevolent, loving, merciful, forgiving – perhaps goodness and justice conceived as a transcendent, supernatural power independent of human activity. On the other an omnipotent, omniscient, creator law giver judge demanding absolute submission and obedience, who is vindictive, jealous, sexist, patriarchal, homophobic, anti-pleasure, anti- open critical thinking, petty, obsessed with rituals of behaviour, clothing, and diet. This second aspect of the traditional God reminds one of the worst kind of husband, father, schoolmaster, priest, or political leader – not a nice chap. Indeed the concept of God as absolute lawgiver is probably in large part a projection of primal ugly features of the male ego and id – a sexually insecure control freak wanting power over others, not tolerating disagreement. Men (and women) can regard this God monster/tyrant as great precisely because it is a fundamental part of their own natures (what they aspire to, or are familiar with). It is no psychological accident that psychopathic, megalomaniac dictators and religious leaders receive the same mass following and adulation as the traditional lawgiver God. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Kim Jong Il, Khadafy, Robert Mugabe, et al, not Jesus, are the incarnation of the traditional Godfather, the God of Abraham and Muhammad.

God devotees claim we cannot, with our puny minds, grasp the how and why of God (though they have no trouble themselves making all sorts of dogmatic pronouncements about what God wants!!) – ‘where did God come from?’ God just is eternally. But then why not suppose matter/energy just is eternally, or that it somehow popped out of nothingness? The appeal to a creator God supplies a familiar anthropomorphic model of creation and purpose but then arbitrarily forbids further inquiry. Likewise, the appeal to God as the ground of Being, or as Being in itself is a pseudo-explanation. God as Being does not explain why there is something rather than nothing, but rather affirms that things do exist and that there is a mysterious foundation, ‘support’, or sufficient reason for this but one can’t say what it is. When you want an explanation but can’t find one, just call it God (or Fate). Back this up with a powerful institution based on supposed divine revelation. Add that to question the purported divine revelation (blasphemy – blaming or slandering the Almighty) is to challenge the Divine Lawmaker and Goodness itself and hence must be severely punished.

God is not necessary philosophically, scientifically, morally, spiritually, or aesthetically. Rather God is a psychologically necessary prop for most human beings given traditional systems of education and upbringing. Religious claims (including those of quasi-religions such as Marxism, Jungianism, astrology, or Deconstruction) are questionable even when (or especially when) they hide behind supposed incorrigible insight or revelation. Similarly, it is a reasonable question whether religion in general is a force for good or rather evil. If I am not allowed to criticize religions why should the religious be allowed to criticize my atheism, humanism, or pantheism? If criticism of religion is forbidden why not ban criticism of someone’s artistic, literary, or political beliefs or tastes, or cultural practices? Is it healthy to suppress questioning or calm, reasoned criticism on the grounds that it offends or supposedly might lead to prejudice towards some allegedly disadvantaged group?

We can revere goodness without grounding it in the edicts of a supernatural Deity. We don’t need the sanction of Divine command or threat of Divine punishment to pursue goodness. Citing God’s commands to justify being moral is basically an appeal to force (and personal reward) rather than to the inherent nature of good for its own sake. Even if there is no God (at a minimum a quasi-eternal force of goodness existing independently of human activities – see my blog posting Minimalist God ) goodness still exists or can be cultivated, e.g. equality of opportunity; equitable distribution of wealth; open critical thinking, reduction of suffering; right of women to higher education and birth control; providing all with the basics; kindness; courtesy; empathy; personal responsibility. With or without belief in God there will always be room for disagreement about what policies or practices are good and just, and what goodness and justice consist in.

It is probably psychologically more challenging to find meaning in life without the solace of traditional religious belief. If there is no personal afterlife or rebirth there is diminished capacity for making amends for one’s own grievous errors, making it up to someone you hurt. At some point, too, there is little chance for further personal happiness. No more chances – this is it mate. For instance, when you are 60 years old you realize you love someone deeply (someone you mistreated and did not appreciate), that she/he is a wonderful person just right for you. Before you can tell her and enrich her life and yours she is killed or dies prematurely. You will never meet again. You will likely never have another soul mate. Again, if there is no arbiter God or karmic law then there is no guaranteed tangible personal reward for your efforts towards goodness - all the suffering, deprivation, and striving you may go through. The possibility of simply greater inner peace may seem insufficient reward. Also, without an arbiter God or karmic law, it is harder to bear the unfairness of life – sometimes good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Even in a just society some people will have a better chance at happiness than others – some have better genes and parenting than others.

There are several different paths by which people commonly seek meaning in life (consciously or unconsciously). Many seek meaning through individual personal achievement and distinction. This could be artistic, intellectual, athletic, physical feats, career, business, profession, or in politics. Others are oriented more towards the goal of personal pleasure or happiness as supplying the meaning of life – romantic love, material standard of living, financial security, sex, thrills, eventual reward in paradise. Third, some find meaning in the pursuit of virtue, community service, good works, being a good person for its own sake. Fourth, some people find meaning in life largely through supposed spiritual development – cultivating compassion, letting go of anger, resentment, material desires, the ego, being more aware of the putative transcendent, deep, consoling mystical states, qualities, and apprehensions which allegedly go beyond ordinary, utilitarian, logical language. Fifthly, people can find meaning in life by pursuing knowledge, greater understanding or clarification largely for its own sake (or artistic creativity for its own sake). Sixthly, some people in effect get their meaning in life largely by merging with or identifying themselves with some cause or group. This could be a religion, ideology, ethnic group, sports team, pop star, or literary celebrity. Submitting oneself unquestioningly to the supposed will of God might be included in this sixth path.

There is a seventh route to meaning in life which is unduly neglected. This is the path of emotional development – being more aware of one’s own feelings and emotional processes including triggers, investments, and those of others. Being more able to admit one’s own biases, privileges, and flaws. Being curious about one’s own emotional processes, and those of others. Exploring, imagining, what it would be like to be of a different gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, class, philosophical or political outlook, have different aesthetic preferences.

This elucidation, analysis, and exploration of the meaning of life has several implications. One: it may be a mistake to look for some one all-encompassing meaning or comfort in life whether through Jesus, Allah, Virgin Mary, Jung, Marx, or Dalai Lama. Two: it may be a mistake to look for some fairly straightforward foolproof recipe for finding meaning (or happiness) in life which fits people of all temperaments, abilities, and interests.

Nonetheless one can point to some general aids to finding meaning (and happiness). First, pay attention to basic biological and psychological needs. Second, allow time for fun, enjoyment, and relaxation. Third, develop the whole person – intellectual, athletic, artistic, emotional, social, spiritual, and moral. Fourth, stop thinking mainly or solely of your own well-being, welfare, just treatment, or interest (wealth, health, security, opportunities, rights) or that of your family, tribe, or ethnic group. Have regard for the well-being and happiness of those outside your group. Fifth, switch your energy and focus to simple goods which are available even if you don’t have money, good health, or romantic partner e.g. kindness, friendship, beauty, literature, art, music. Sixth, remember there are others who have gone through similar suffering who would be sympathetic to you. Seventh, remind yourself there will always be some unfairness and mistakes in life – others have suffered far greater misfortune and injustice, and made worse mistakes than I. Eighth, let go of having to be right. Instead focus on developing tentative views which are plausible and reasonable

The meaning of life is that there is no definite, demonstrable, certain meaning to life. You have to make it up, work something out for yourself, as you go along. Some ways of finding meaning harm others or yourself. You can be mistaken about what is worthwhile even for yourself. Learn to live with doubt, uncertainty, disagreement, mistakes, disappointment, rejection, sexual frustration, loneliness, unfairness. Develop flexible mechanisms for coping with life’s inevitable setbacks. Life is messy and frustrating. Accept your weaknesses and strengths.

You are just one amongst billions of humans, and one amongst billions upon billions of sentient beings. Yes you are unique but so is every snowflake, blade of grass, leaf, or bacterium. You are part of the flow of life and so are those you dislike or who dislike you. You (and those you dislike) are more wonderful and intricate than a butterfly or sparrow. You have a capacity for nobility lacking in an eagle, lion, or killer whale. The nobility you attain depends on you. If you are lucky you will have a lover and best friend who challenges, encourages, and treasures you. If you are unlucky you can be an unsung, unknown treasure. There will always be some conflict and flaws. Heaven is when you realize there is no heaven.

Dr. Velociraptor Personal

2011-04-22T14:48:00.000-07:00

One man’s attempt to package his personality, hopes, values, and outlook in less than 1000 words.

Seeking : Friendship with some degree of mutual physical attraction (‘yes I would like to kiss this person’) with slim woman 5 ft. + , any race/nationality, non-smoker, age 52 – 60 (older women usually find my vigour and drive a bit daunting), who enjoys cycling and shares some of my interests. Would appreciate, but not counting on, romantic, soul mate, monogamous, lifelong partnership.

Myself : 5’ 9’’, 152 lbs, brown eyes, grey hair, glasses just for reading, clean shaven, Caucasian, grew up in UK, turn 68 in 2011. Very athletic – racing cyclist, intellectual (former university philosophy teacher), guitarist/singer, writer. Practise meditation, Tai Chi. Don’t have a tv. Don’t take a newspaper or magazine. Rarely drink. Don’t eat much meat. Simple, modest lifestyle. Low income, not wealthy by N. American standards. Don’t buy lottery tickets or gamble. No debts. Able to travel.
Not a gardener or pet lover. Home Victoria BC. Lived on the prairies for 8 years – Calgary, Red Deer, Regina.

2 adult sons. One university math teacher Eastern U.S. Other pharmaceutical research Switzerland. One grandchild – 1year old girl.

Founded unique cycling and philosophy group : Velociraptors Cycling Association.
Have cycling and philosophy blog : Dr. Velociraptor.
Ran a philosophy discussion/reading group in Victoria, BC : Diotima.

Good genes : dad lived to 92. Mum to 86. Both active and independent until last few days.

Photos available soon. Not got a camera yet. Computer skills limited.

Qualities I admire : Ability to laugh at oneself; explore different viewpoints; admit own privileges and good fortune; admit own flaws and less noble desires; admit own biases and emotional investment; kindness; courtesy; question and elucidate underlying presuppositions; clarify nebulous core concepts; look at evidence for and against.

Support for equal opportunity; right of women everywhere to higher education and birth control; acceptance of some personal responsibility – not just blaming government, society, big business, politicians, the rich; support for freedom to criticise views of left or right, ruling ideologies; acceptance of disagreement, conflict, compromise, (stress, rejection, loss, etc.) as part of life.

Revered writers : Shakespeare, Keats, some of Wordsworth, Blake, D.H. Lawrence despite his being over the top. Favourite religious quotation: Matthew 7.3.

Dislikes : Self-opinionated, overbearing people - presumption of being morally superior (holier than thou attitude) or more enlightened; bullying; cruelty; snobbery; pretentious woolly language; wanting ever more financial security; knee-jerk ‘motherhood’ sentimentalism; desire to amass wealth for one’s grandchildren; tribalism; cult of celebrity/personality; dogmatism – clichés of right or left; assumption that bottled water is superior to municipal tap water; concern with style, image, being cool/fashionable – glamourisation of people on tv and in movies; glib 30 seconds packaging in media; overuse of intercontinental travel and tourism; overuse of motor homes, motor boats, snowmobiles, car cult; presumption that religion is good; presumption of having religious truth; romanticizing/idealizing ethnic, aboriginal, non-Western cultures; disparate treatment of marijuana, etc. compared with alcohol and tobacco.

Outlook : Sceptic, open critical thinker with an interest in the notion of the transcendent – supposed non-logical mode of apprehension, thinking , or justification.

Not an adherent of any religion or quasi-religion including : monotheisms, Marx, Jung, political correctness, postmodernism, or astrology.

Somewhat sympathetic to philosophical Taoism and Buddhism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Spinoza, pantheism, and Platonism.

Critical of the notion of sacred, supposed infallible texts whether based on alleged divine revelation or proclaimed deep insight or intuition. ‘Why is your divine revelation or poetic insight superior to mine?’

Think all standard political parties avoid the main social/global problems, viz.: human overpopulation; ever-increasing material expectations; desire for high return on savings/investment; consumerism/materialism; false sense of entitlement and unrealistic expectations; unacknowledged greed of the average person – hypocrisy concerning one’s own greed, desire for status and control; not acknowledging roots of social/global problems in basic human psychology including one’s own; not shifting the tax burden to all those earning more than $50, 000 per year; belief in ever increasing economic growth; belief that jobs/services/production are good no matter what is being produced/bought and sold; restriction of free expression and association and women’s rights in much of the non-Western world.

Fun, Enjoyment : Nature walks, reading, outdoor swimming, road and off-road bike rides, exploring BC. Companionship of cycling and cycle racing fraternity (although they do tend to be loners and sometimes narrow-focused!). Some live theatre, occasional foreign language movie, intelligent comedy (e.g. Tom Stoppard, Michael Frayn, David Lodge, Augusten Burroughs). Occasional Beethoven, Mahler, opera, ballet. CBC radio – some Tonic, Tempo, Q, The Current, Quirks and Quarks, Day 6, White Coat Black Art, The Persuaders, Sparks. Occasional restaurant with a great view.

Important Qualities in Relationship : Mutual comfort, sympathy, encouragement, appreciation, support, respect, tenderness. Sharing fears, hopes, dreams, disappointments, personal histories. Sharing cooking, shopping, domestic chores.

Willingness to compromise. Doing something because my partner would appreciate it even if it’s not my first preference.

Never forgetting the wonder of this other human being who has chosen to share her life with you. Being intimate lovers and best friends.

Expectations : Don’t expect a rush to my door. Not out to win a popularity contest. Hope to appeal to a discerning, talented few who are outside the norm.

Even if you are alone there is always beauty, goodness, love within you and around you to help you be calm and find enjoyment amidst life’s inevitable setbacks.

Minimalist God

2010-11-18T12:37:00.000-08:00

There is a minimalist concept of God which is more plausible and noble than the standard Judaic/Christian/Islamic concept of God. However, the existence of God remains improbable (given available evidence of all kinds) even under this minimalist concept. Furthermore, even this minimalist concept of God is not necessary for upholding worthy moral values or making life meaningful.

One can postulate the existence of a widespread, long-standing, almost indestructible, powerful force which responds to yearnings for higher values, and sustains these values and helps to promote and realize them. This force exists apart from the existence of various individual biological beings who have higher consciousness (have language, abstract thought, the capacity for appreciating higher values – moral thinking and feeling, art, intellectual attainment, open critical thinking, a sense of the putative transcendent), though it might cease to exist if all biological beings with higher consciousness are eliminated from the cosmos. Furthermore, this cosmic minimalist God force corresponding to higher values might have emerged (fully) only as higher consciousness developed/evolved in the cosmos. (Higher values are contrasted with more materialistic, animalistic pleasures of eating, alcohol, drugs, non-loving sex, procreating, status, fame, power, ego gratification.)

The higher values which the cosmic minimalist God force nurtures might include :
Kindness;
Regard for the well-being and suffering of other beings of higher consciousness as being of equal worth to one’s own (or to those of one’s own family, tribe, coreligionists, ethnic group, class, nation, gender, species);
Tolerance of disagreement and conflict in basic beliefs, values, priorities as being part of higher consciousness;
Equal opportunity to try to train for (compete for) more prestigious, personally rewarding, influential positions, e.g. lawyer, doctor, politician, senior civil servant, scientist, university professor, artist, spiritual leader, regardless of gender, ethnicity, parentage, sexual preference, religious or ideological belief – i.e. level the playing field, end discrimination;
Open critical thinking ( opposed to truth based on authority, sacred text, or personal conviction – see future blog);
Appreciation of beauty, art, literature, music, science, math;
Concern for all sentient beings;
Equitable distribution of wealth;
Right of all to higher education, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual development; Assumption of some personal responsibility for one’s own situation;
Assumption of some personal responsibility for social, global, and environmental problems;
Being able to admit/acknowledge one’s own benefits, privileges, and luck;
Willingness to give up some of one’s own benefits so that others can have the basics;
Right of all to some say in government;
Freedom to form different political parties;
Openness to non-materialistic/non-utilitarian modes of thinking (even putative non-logical or non-conceptual thinking or awareness) – awareness of thoughts, feelings, ‘perceptions’, ‘intuitions’, ‘insights’, mystical experiences which seem to ‘transcend’ the mundane and quantitative - go beyond ordinary, logical, factual, literal language, and not be capable of, or require, justification in logical terms – possibility of non-logical modes of justification, apprehension, and states of affairs;
Emotional awareness of self and others;
Curiousity, wonder, willingness to challenge oneself;
Ability to laugh at oneself, admit one’s own weaknesses, foibles, and biases.

The higher values which the cosmic minimalist God force nurtures might exclude :
Organized religion – especially the belief that conforming to a particular (or any) ritual or doctrine is a guarantee of salvation and a sign of spiritual superiority;
Buying into some ideology as beyond criticism;
Political correctness (knee-jerk liberalism) – idealization or romanticisation of the poor, the disadvantaged, drug addicts, criminals, etc., as having no personal responsibility for their own situation , just an inner goodness which has been thwarted by abuse, neglect, oppression, lack of educational opportunity, low income;
Cult of victimhood;
False sense of entitlement;
Unrealistic expectations;
Welfare dependency;
Ascribing all or most of the blame for social, environmental problems, injustice, war, famine, poverty, to big business (multinational executives not the millions of ordinary shareholders!), corrupt politicians, white imperialism or colonialism;
Running down, blaming Western societies, especially the USA, while idealising and exonerating non-Western societies;
Denying that some differences in ability may be due to genes;
Transmission of wealth or power through family dynasties, e.g. monarchy, aristocracy, castes, heiresses;
Romanticized, sanitized, Pollyanna view of human nature – ordinary human beings just given love, education, money, will be free from bad (baser, darker) qualities or flaws such as (apart from one’s already mentioned – unrealistic expectations, false sense of entitlement, etc.) greed, selfishness, self-centredness, wanting more money, power, or status than the next guy, being unable to admit that one already has significantly more than an average share, being unable to admit that one has significantly more than what is needed for basic security and inner satisfaction, personal bias, favouritism, nepotism, emotional investment, vested interest, prejudice, irrationality, unreasonableness, rationalizing, informal fallacies, defence mechanisms, smugness, hypocrisy, self-deception, projection, pretentious obfuscating language, exaggeration, distortion, ignoring counterevidence, resisting clarification and subjecting/opening one’s own cherished beliefs to criticism and examination, demonizing, idealizing hero worshipping, scapegoating, sentimental cant, snobbery, sour grapes, resentment, reactivity, fantasy or delusion;
Self-delusion (self-opinionated, tendency to egotistical megalomania) – not coming to terms with the fact that you are just one educated, intelligent, sensitive, articulate, well-read, talented person amongst millions many of whom have different opinions from yours about literature, politics, human nature, science, the nature of mind, what is best for society, what is fair, etc.
Belief that good qualities and attainments can be acquired without a lot of hard work and some pain – that good learning can just be fun and entertaining.

In other words, being kind and compassionate, and believing in equal opportunity and justice do not mean denying differences in attainment and excusing all those who do not have the best start in life. Still less do they mean excusing even the now privileged members of an ethnic group which is or was on the whole disadvantaged.

The minimalist concept of God has some affinity to notions of God found in some sophisticated versions of the Upanisads, Buddhism, Taoism, and Zen. It also has some affinity to the God of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Epicureans, Spinoza, Shelley, Blake, Hegel, Nietzsche, Bergson (élan vital), D.H. Lawrence, and Einstein. According to the minimalist concept of God the standard God of most major religions is a psychopathic, male chauvinist, bullying, control freak, dogmatic bigot. ‘He’ exemplifies the worst hang-ups of human beings – those surrounding fear, insecurity, resentment, and jealousy concerning the sexual enjoyment and pleasure of others especially women (and fears concerning threats to one’s own power, wealth, and status). The standard God of major religions is far more concerned about sexual ‘purity’ and ‘correct’ ritual and dogma than ‘He’ is about ending war, poverty, injustice, and sexual discrimination.

A major function of standard religions is to provide comfort by feeding into and reinforcing deep-rooted fears and prejudices. Standard religion suppresses or represses a reasonable exploration of ignoble aspects of human nature by substituting a crude doctrine of sin (and taboos) against simplistic rules of sexual mores, ritual, and dogma. Instead, a clear, calm, honest examination of ignoble aspects of humanity (embedded in the basic psychology of all races, cultures, and societies, not just Western society – present in myself and those I like and agree with, not just in those I dislike and disagree with) would enable people to come to terms with (acknowledge, embrace, make friends with, let go of) the true nature of their fearful, selfish, greedy, self-centred, smug, ego-defending traits then transcend them in noble achievements and activity here on Earth.

The minimalist God is rather impersonal, serene, inscrutable, imperturbable, detached. There is a clear, lofty, sad, magnificent, mysterious beauty and wonder to It. A philosopher’s, poet’s, scientist’s, mathematician’s, composer’s, artist’s, skeptical humanist’s God. A God which ‘loves’ women, eros, romantic love, nurturing, vivacity, curiousity, hopefulness, atheists, racing cyclists, and intelligent humour. The minimalist God would count it an honour if you disbelieved in It – so long as you gave clear, calm reasons. It would like it if you made fun of It too – being a bit of a cosmic jester Itself. (Naturally, like everyone else, I fashion God in my own image, desires, or values!)

Belief in the minimalist God does not provide justification for any of the following common theological tenets: personal afterlife; resurrection; reincarnation; heaven; hell; the truth of any holy scriptures as being the revealed word of God (holy scriptures and religious edicts as unquestionable are heretical, blasphemous, and anathema to the minimalist God); efficacy of prayer; religious institutions as being guardians of morality; priests, imams, Popes, etc., as being spokespersons of God; God as omniscient; God as creator of the universe; God as omnipotent.
The minimalist God force is inimical to religious, political, and ideological dogma, the desire for simplistic, black and white answers. It is also inimical to homophobia, the subjugation of women (and, I would argue, to prohibiting birth control, abortion, assisted euthanasia, and use of alcohol and recreational drugs by adults).

The minimalist God force might not Itself be conscious per se. It just responds to and facilitates goodness in higher consciousness. Also, the minimalist God force might not be the basic, fundamental reality in the cosmos. God Itself might be an emergent non-basic force somehow developing out of basic (quantum) ‘mechanistic’ forces: electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, basic chemical processes, evolution by natural selection.

The minimalist God force is similar to other concepts of God in that it fosters hope for the eventual triumph of goodness (goodness naturally conceived in a certain way since different people have different ideas of what constitutes goodness – or what God’s law [or the ‘Natural Law’] is, if you put it that way). However, the eventual triumph of goodness is not pre-ordained or guaranteed under the minimalist God conception. Also, the unity (or Trinity) of God is not entailed by the minimalist conception. There might be more than one God force at one or various times – though individuation here would be a problem.

Belief in a Minimalist God Force (full capitals to denote God concept qualitatively distinct from standard one, but just as worthy of respect) goes beyond the common naturalistic psychological fact that we derive comfort, consolation, inspiration from the thought of great artists, writers, composers, thinkers, moral teachers, etc. Their spirit lives on in their work and example. Belief in (the/a) Minimalist God Force (MGF for short) does not require that the individual consciousness of a great composer, say, actually survives death. But it does posit that the God force (into which part of the consciousness of a great composer may be absorbed) is somehow out there influencing events in the realm of higher consciousness apart from mental acts and states of biological creatures with higher consciousness. If there is a time when no biological (or electronic) creature with higher consciousness is thinking of a minimalist God force it does not follow that the God force thereby ceases to exist. The Minimalist God Force is supposed to be not just a subjective psychological phenomenon (or a whole collection of them) but something objectively in the cosmos, outside of human or similar mind/brain states, like cells, chemical elements, and electro-magnetism.

There is, though, insufficient evidence to warrant belief in even a minimalist God force actually out there apart from/over and above (though not independent of) yearnings, hopes, desires, feelings of human beings or similar biological or artificial consciousnesses. Such a God force would have to be a mysterious, occult force such as is supposed to be at work in astrology, telepathy, or psycho-kinesis (or possibly Jungian archetypes, the Enneagram, etc.). But there is little objective evidence to indicate that such putative psychoid, para-normal processes over and above known physico-chemical ones do occur. Such unusual phenomena as are observed seem susceptible of a naturalistic, ‘mechanistic’, non-psychic explanation.

Mystical yearnings and experiences, a sense of the ‘transcendent’, are indeed a basic part of human experience – important, enriching ones. However, this does not mean that there is something out there apart from the human mind corresponding to the mystical experience. It need not be that in mystical experience, say, the mind is actually ‘perceiving’ or intuiting some non-natural (or supra, or trans-natural) state of affairs – part of reality apart from the human brain. A mystical experience may be more like a dream or hallucination than an extra-sensory ‘perception’. It may be essentially subjective and human mind-dependent like sexual joy and romantic love even though deeply moving and transformative. Similarly, visions of the Virgin Mary etc. may be hallucinations brought on by religious fervour and indoctrination, not actual visitations by a divine spiritual being. Stigmata (and witch doctor spells) may be due to naturalistic human psychology (suggestibility) and brain chemistry, not to divine (or spirit) intervention or manifestation.

Even if you believe in an MGF – the objective existence of a merely minimalist God force (or something like it) – there is still room for (irresolvable?) disagreement about what qualities God is drawn to or opposed to, what is good, best social policy etc. For instance, my minimalist God force would foster upper limits on wealth, income, inheritance, procreation, and parents’ rights. Yours might not. Disagreement about what is good or what God wants, whether or not He, She, or It exists, what the heck the semantic content of “God” is, is perfectly healthy and legitimate. Why try to suppress such disagreement by religious (or ideological) dictatorship and brainwashing? If God really is ineffable then for God’s sake stop telling us what God does or doesn’t want! Be honest and say it is what you want or don’t want and often for very murky and ignoble motives.

Even if there is no God, not even an MGF, this does not divest the universe of beauty, kindness, sensitivity, love, joy, justice, forgiveness, art, clear thinking, serenity, wonder, and so on. All it means is that these noble qualities reside in the higher consciousness of creatures like human beings. The values we rightly treasure and which make life meaningful will disappear unless embodied in the actions and thoughts of human or similar beings. All the more reason for not destroying ourselves through religious (or ideological) intolerance, fanaticism, fundamentalism, dogma, and superstition (or through the desire for power and control, or through near universalized and rationalised greed). It is perhaps consoling to believe that even if the human species were eliminated kindness, love, etc. would not perish because they would still reside in a God force. But even with no God force there is still the possibility that the universe will again throw up some creatures with higher consciousness who have noble values. It is nice to think there is a God force at work in the cosmos helping us along to peace, justice, kindness, wisdom, and love. But surely we would not give up a valued, important journey because the loving mother or partner we set off with as guide has died.

You personally may never reach the Promised Land (maybe we never do, and the journey is the point, not arriving at some fictitious, fairy tale, fantasy, paradise, utopia, heaven). You may have no descendants who honour your memory. Perhaps you leave nothing which will survive for some members of future generations to value. (We can’t all be great writers, artists, musicians, philosophers, scientists, sports or entertainment stars, etc.). Yet you have still been an unknown warrior in a noble struggle, a participant in an heroic endeavour, a great adventure, even if you did not achieve anywhere near as much as you had hoped. You have done your bit to help bring about a better world, add to the store of goodness, make people nobler. Hopefully, you have some joy and fun too.

Dr. Velociraptor Guitar Vocals

2010-11-11T13:20:00.000-08:00

Dr. Velociraptor Versatile Guitar Vocals

Elite Senior racing cyclist. Former university philosophy teacher.

Over 600 covers + originals.

Elvis. Sinatra. Beatles. Stones. Credence. Buddy Holly. Dylan. Hank Williams. Chuck Berry. Eric Clapton. Roy Orbison. Platters.

Aretha Franklin. Supremes. Billie Holiday. Janis Joplin. Vera Lynn. Julie Andrews.

Duke Ellington. Gershwin. Cole Porter. Many more.

Dance tunes. Singalong. Xmas. Hymns. Lounge easy listening. Affordable solo entertainer.

Victoria B.C. Canada (778) 430-0646

davidmercerphd@yahoo.ca

drvelociraptor.blogspot.com

www.velociraptors.ca

Ground Zero Islamic Centre?

2010-09-12T15:37:00.000-07:00

On a pragmatic note: who gave planning approval for the project? Surely New York City administrators could see this project was ill-advised politically even if morally justifiable.

Liberals and the politically correct stridently drive a wedge between Islam and terrorists who usurp and pervert Islam. But is a sharp distinction between mainstream Islam and fundamentalist, militant Islam fully justified? Some imams in the West have condemned terrorism and suicide bombings as unIslamic. However, worldwide there are clearly millions who see themselves as devout Muslims yet are sympathetic to, and supportive of militant Islam - violence in the name and cause of Islam. If the terrorists did not have widespread support from coreligionists how could they be so formidable? Has there yet emerged/evolved a mainstream Islamic denomination which officially and categorically renounces and denounces violence in the cause of Islam. What are ‘Al Qaeda’ and ‘Taliban’ but names for those Muslims who endorse or commit violence in order to, as they see it, promote the cause of Islam and hence the will of God? Have these Muslims been branded as heretics and excommunicated from mainstream Islam? Christian and Buddhist pacifism are well-known but is there yet an Islamic movement of ahimsa or non-violence?

We have to cut through the rhetoric and emotional bias and investment (on both sides) and acknowledge differences between cultures, societies, values, ideologies, and religions. Difference and disagreement, even at a deep level, need not be bad or frightening. We have to look at actual practice as well as what people preach.

Religion is still a sacred cow (!) even in the secular, democratic West. Someone who criticizes religion (or advocates serious upper limits on wealth, income, or inheritance, or parental power) is unlikely to be elected to political or public office. Religion is widely seen as the foundation for morality, and the gateway to an underlying spiritual reality. Religions are wealthy, powerful institutions offering group solidarity and a feeling of superiority to those who are not members of one’s own religion.

It is easy to assert that Islam (Catholicism, Baptism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jungianism, aboriginal culture, etc.) preaches love, tolerance, peace, respect, spirituality, a sense of connexion with one’s fellow humans and nature, and so on. Such motherhood, apple pie slogans sound lovely though gaseous – they give a warm, comforting glow. But what does the factual content of such claims amount to? How do they translate into specific positions on fundamental social issues such as the following?
Abortion, contraception, right of women to education, to hold political, religious, judicial, or administrative office, to wear rational dress, move freely and independently in public;
Separation of Church and State, laws based on open debate not on religious authority, the right to run for office as an alternative party – freedom of political affiliation;
Freedom of expression – including freedom to criticize religion or ideology or the ruling party, freedom to give offence to some (even members of a so-called disadvantaged group);
Punishment of criminals, the death penalty, conscientious objectors, gun control;
Assisted euthanasia, legalization with regulation of recreational drugs, censorship; Prostitution, animal rights, apostasy or conversion to a non-established religion.

It is fatuous, deceitful, and hypocritical to ignore that, at present, mainstream Islam (and conservative Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Baptism) is opposed to many values which are basic to the vision of liberal, democratic society – values which may be elicited by considering liberal positions on the aforementioned social issues, and are articulated by people like John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, etc. Equally, it is ludicrous to maintain that Islam and Christianity (or Judaism) assert essentially the same Word of God (doctrines) except that for the former this Truth was channeled through Muhammad and for the latter through Jesus, and that both are essentially benign and simply preach love, brotherhood of man, social justice, peace, forgiveness, avoidance of greed, materialism, and selfishness, etc. If this were the case, why so much friction and bloodshed between the religions and various denominations over the centuries and which continue still? It’s no use trying to pass off the violence and hate as simply due to politics since without religious backing the political disagreements would not get such a ferocious grip. (Can one separate political from religious differences and disagreements anyway?)

It is not clear for instance that Islam agrees with some basic Christian moral doctrines. This is not to say that the Christian doctrines are superior (Nietzsche would say that they are inferior.) For example, is there anything in the Qur’an equivalent to the New Testament teachings of turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, doing good to him who hurts you, forgiving 70 times 7, not stoning the woman taken in adultery. Not for nothing do some Muslim scholars call Christianity the Buddhism of the West. Whereas there is a well-established Pacifist Christian movement and pacifism seems to be at the core of Buddhism ‘Pacifist Muslim’ may be as yet something of an oxymoron. Again, note I am not saying that pacifism is correct or superior.

Silver Star and Full Mt. Washington Hill Climbs.

2010-08-14T13:30:00.000-07:00

When these are run as individual time trials the age standards will be the 25 mile time trial standards.

If they are run as Australian pursuit divide the 10% longer than regular Australian pursuit age standards (chart D) by 2.

If they are run as massed start divide the 10% longer than regular massed start chart by 2.

Grand Forks and Comox Forbidden Plateau Hill Climbs.

2010-08-14T13:26:00.000-07:00

When these are run as individual time trials the age standard will be 50% of the 10 mile time trial standards. This is assuming the 2010 courses are used.

If they are run as Australian pursuit divide the regular 64 k Australian pursuit age standards (chart B) by 8 or 10.

If they are run as massed start divide the regular 64 k massed start chart by 8 or 10.

Penticton/Carmi Hill Climb. Chart G.

2010-08-14T13:19:00.000-07:00

Australian Pursuit. 10 year start gaps. 60s 3 minutes after 70s; 50s 2 minutes after 60s; 40s 1 minute 30 seconds after 50s; 30s 1 minute after 40s.

Distance c. 9 k.

Divide the regular 64 k Australian pursuit age standards (chart B) by 3.

(For individual tt start 10 mile time trial age standards plus 50% would be used.)

30. 35-10
31. 35-11
32. 35-12
33. 35-14
34. 35-17
35. 35-20
36. 35-24
37. 35-28
38. 35-32
39. 35-36
Yearly increment 35-9 is 4 seconds. Gap 39-40 is 19 seconds.

40. 35-55
41. 36-00
42. 36-05
43. 36-10
44. 36-15
45. 36-20
46. 36-25
47. 36-30
48. 36-35
49. 36-40
Yearly increment 40-49 is 5 seconds. Gap 49-50 is 30 seconds.

50. 37-10
51. 37-16
52. 37-22
53. 37-28
54. 37-34
55. 37-40
56. 37-46
57. 37-52
58. 37-58
59. 38-04
Yearly increment 50-59 is 6 seconds. Gap 59-60 is 39 seconds.

60. 38-43
61. 38-51
62. 38-58
63. 39-05
64. 39-13
65. 39-20
66. 39-27
67. 39-35
68. 39-42
69. 39-49
Yearly increment 60-69 is 7/8 seconds. Gap 69-70 is 58 seconds.

70. 40-47
71. 40-57
72. 41-08
73. 41-19
74. 41-29
75. 41-40
76. 41-51
77. 42-01
78. 42-12
79. 42-23
Yearly increment 70-79 is 11/10 seconds. Gap 79-80 is 1 minute 7 seconds.

80. 43-30
81. 43-44
82. 43-58
83. 44-12
84. 44-26
85. 44-40
86. 44-54
87. 45-08
88. 45-22
89. 45-36
Yearly increment 80-89 is 14 seconds. Gap 89-90 is 1 minute 17 seconds.

90. 46-53
91. 47-11
92. 47-28
93. 47-45
94. 48-03
95. 48-20
96. 48-37
97. 48-55
98. 49-12
99. 49-29
Yearly increment 90-99 is 17/18 seconds. Gap 99-100 is 1 minute 28 seconds.

S.Shawnigan Lake Hill Climb. Chart F.

2010-08-14T13:12:00.000-07:00

Australian Pursuit. 10 year start gaps: 60s 2minutes after 70s; 50s 1 ½ minutes after 60s; 40s 1 minute after 50s; 30s ½ minute after 40s. DT/DM (2010) time c. 23-24 minutes. Hypothetical average 35 year-old time c. 26 minutes 30 seconds. Distance c. 9 k.

Divide the regular 64 k Australian pursuit group ride age standards (Chart B) by 4.

(For individual tt start 10 mile time trial age standards would be used.)

30. 26-22
31. 26-23
32. 26-24
33. 26-25
34. 26-27
35. 26-30
36. 26-33
37. 26-36
38. 26-39
39. 26-42
Yearly increment 35-39 is 3 seconds. Gap 39-40 is 14 seconds.

40. 26-56
41. 27-00
42. 27-04
43. 27-07
44. 27-11
45. 27-15
46. 27-19
47. 27-22
48. 27-26
49. 27-30
Yearly increment 40-49 is 4/3 seconds. Gap 49-50 is 22 seconds.

50. 27-52
51. 27-57
52. 28-01
53. 28-06
54. 28-10
55. 28-15
56. 28-19
57. 28-24
58. 28-28
59. 28-33
Yearly increment 50-59 is 5/4 seconds. Gap 59-60 is 29 seconds.

60. 29-02
61. 29-08
62. 29-13
63. 29-19
64. 29-24
65. 29-30
66. 29-35
67. 29-41
68. 29-46
69. 29-52
Yearly increment 60-69 is 6/5 seconds. Gap 69-70 is 43 seconds.

70. 30-35
71. 30-43
72. 30-51
73. 30-59
74. 31-07
75. 31-15
76. 31-23
77. 31-31
78. 31-39
79. 31-47
Yearly increment 70-79 is 8 seconds. Gap 79-80 is 50 seconds.

80. 32-37
81. 32-48
82. 32-58
83. 33-09
84. 33-19
85. 33-30
86. 33-40
87. 33-51
88. 34-01
89. 34-12
Yearly increment 80-89 is 11/10 seconds. Gap 89-90 is 58 seconds.

90. 35-10
91. 35-23
92. 35-38
93. 35-49
94. 36-02
95. 36-15
96. 36-28
97. 36-41
98. 36-54
99. 37-07
Yearly increment 90-99 is 13 seconds. Gap 99-100 is 1 minute 5 seconds.

Australian Pursuit 15% Longer than Regular. Chart E.

2010-08-14T13:06:00.000-07:00

For courses 15% longer (distance or time) than regular 64 k (40 miles). D.T./D.M. (2010) time c. 2-05-00. E.g. Penticton rr. Australian pursuit with regular 10 year start gaps.

30. 2-1-19
31. 2-1-22
32. 2-1-27
33. 2-1-34
34. 2-1-43
35. 2-1-54
36. 2-2-07
37. 2-2-20
38. 2-2-33
39. 2-2-46
Yearly increment 35-39 is 13 seconds. Gap 39-40 is 1 minute 5 seconds.

40. 2-3-51
41. 2-4-08
42. 2-4-25
43. 2-4-42
44. 2-4-59
45. 2-5-16
46. 2-5-33
47. 2-5-50
48. 2-6-07
49. 2-6-24
Yearly increment 40-49 is 17 seconds. Gap 49-50 is 1 minute 42 seconds.

50. 2-8-06
51. 2-8-27
52. 2-8-48
53. 2-9-09
54. 2-9-30
55. 2-9-51
56. 2-10-12
57. 2-10-33
58. 2-10-54
59. 2-11-15
Yearly increment 50-59 is 21 seconds. Gap 59-60 is 2 minutes 16 seconds.

60. 2-13-31
61. 2-13-56
62. 2-14-21
63. 2-14-46
64. 2-15-11
65. 2-15-36
66. 2-16-01
67. 2-16-26
68. 2-16-51
69. 2-17-16
Yearly increment 60-69 is 25 seconds. Gap 69-70 is 3 minutes 11 seconds.

70. 2-20-27
71. 2-21-04
72. 2-21-41
73. 2-22-18
74. 2-22-55
75. 2-23-32
76. 2-24-09
77. 2-24-46
78. 2-25-23
79. 2-26-00
Yearly increment 70-79 is 37 seconds. Gap 79-80 is 4 minutes 6 seconds.

80. 2-30-06
81. 2-30-54
82. 2-31-42
83. 2-32-30
84. 2-33-18
85. 2-34-06
86. 2-34-54
87. 2-35-42
88. 2-36-30
89. 2-37-18
Yearly increment 80-89 is 48 seconds. Gap 89-90 is 4 minutes 27 seconds.

90. 2-41-45
91. 2-42-45
92. 2-43-45
93. 2-44-45
94. 2-45-45
95. 2-46-45
96. 2-47-45
97. 2-48-45
98. 2-49-45
99. 2-50-45.
Yearly increment 90-99 is 60 seconds. Gap 99-100 is 4 minutes 48 seconds.

Australian Pursuit 5% Longer than Regular. Chart C

2010-08-14T12:56:00.000-07:00

For courses 5% longer than regular 64 k (40 miles). D.T. (age 60) – D.M. (age 67) time of c. 1-55-00. E.g. Cobble Hill rr 2010. Australian pursuit with regular 10 year start gaps.

30. 1-50-44
31. 1-50-47
32. 1-50-52
33. 1-50-58
34. 1-51-07
35. 1-51-18
36. 1-51-31
37. 1-51-44
38. 1-51-57
39. 1-52-10
Yearly increment 35-39 is 13 seconds. Gap 39-40 is 57 seconds.

40. 1-53-07
41. 1-53-23
42. 1-53-39
43. 1-53-55
44. 1-54-11
45. 1-54-27
46. 1-54-43
47. 1-54-59
48. 1-55-15
49. 1-55-31
Yearly increment 40-49 is 16 seconds. Gap 49-50 is 1 minute 33 seconds.

50. 1-57-04
51. 1-57-23
52. 1-57-42
53. 1-58-01
54. 1-58-20
55. 1-58-39
56. 1-58-58
57. 1-59-17
58. 1-59-36
59. 1-59-55
Yearly increment 50-59 is 19 seconds. Gap 59-60 is 2 minutes 4 seconds.

60. 2-1-59
61. 2-2-22
62. 2-2-45
63. 2-3-08
64. 2-3-31
65. 2-3-54
66. 2-4-17
67. 2-4-40
68. 2-5-03
69. 2-5-26
Yearly increment 60-69 is 23 seconds. Gap 69-70 is 2 minutes 59 seconds.

70. 2-8-25
71. 2-8-59
72. 2-9-33
73. 2-10-07
74. 2-10-41
75. 2-11-15
76. 2-11-49
77. 2-12-23
78. 2-12-57
79. 2-13-31
Yearly increment 70-79 is 34 seconds. Gap 79-80 is 3 minutes 31 seconds.

80. 2-17-02
81. 2-17-46
82. 2-18-30
83. 2-19-14
84. 2-19-58
85. 2-20-42
86. 2-21-26
87. 2-22-10
88. 2-22-54
89. 2-23-38
Yearly increment 80-89 is 44 seconds. Gap 89-90 is 4 minutes 17 seconds.

90. 2-27-55
91. 2-28-45
92. 2-29-35
93. 2-30-25
94. 2-31-20
95. 2-32-15
96. 2-33-10
97. 2-34-05
98. 2-35-00
99. 2-35-55
Yearly increment 90-99 is 55 seconds. Gap 99-100 is 5 minutes 17 seconds.

Australian Pursuit 5% Shorter than Regular. Chart A

2010-08-14T12:38:00.000-07:00

For courses 5% shorter than regular 64 k (40 miles). D.T. (age 60) - D.M. (age 67) time of c. 1-45-00. E.g. Metchosin 2008/9/10. Australian pursuit with regular 10 year start gaps.

30. 1-40-17
31. 1-40-18
32. 1-40-21
33. 1-40-26
34. 1-40-33
35. 1-40-42
36. 1-40-53
37. 1-41-04
38. 1-41-15
39. 1-41-26
Yearly increment 35-39 is 11seconds. Gap 39-40 is 57 seconds.

40. 1-42-23
41. 1-42-37
42. 1-42-51
43. 1-43-05
44. 1-43-19
45. 1-43-33
46. 1-43-47
47. 1-44-01
48. 1-44-15
49. 1-44-29
Yearly increment 40-49 is 14 seconds. Gap 49-50 is 1 minute 27 seconds.

50. 1-45-56
51. 1-46-13
52. 1-46-30
53. 1-46-47
54. 1-47-04
55. 1-47-21
56. 1-47-38
57. 1-47-55
58. 1-48-12
59. 1-48-29
Yearly increment 50-59 is 17 seconds. Gap 59-60 is 1 minute 52 seconds.

60. 1-50-21
61. 1-50-42
62. 1-51-03
63. 1-51-24
64. 1-51-45
65. 1-52-06
66. 1-52-27
67. 1-52-48
68. 1-53-09
69. 1-53-30
Yearly increment 60-69 is 21 seconds. Gap 69-70 is 2 minutes 45 seconds.

70. 1-56-15
71. 1-56-45
72. 1-57-15
73. 1-57-45
74. 1-58-15
75. 1-58-45
76. 1-59-15
77. 1-59-45
78. 2-00-15
79. 2-00-45
Yearly increment 70-79 is 30 seconds. Gap 79-80 is 3 minutes 17 seconds.

80. 2-4-03
81. 2-4-42
82. 2-5-21
83. 2-6-00
84. 2-6-39
85. 2-7-18
86. 2-7-57
87. 2-8-36
88. 2-9-15
89. 2-9-54
Yearly increment 80-89 is 39 seconds. Gap 89-90 is 3 minutes 46 seconds.

90. 2-13-40
91. 2-14-29
92. 2-15-18
93. 2-16-07
94. 2-16-56
95. 2-17-45
96. 2-18-34
97. 2-19-23
98. 2-20-12
99. 2-21-01
Yearly increment 90-99 is 49 seconds. Gap 99-100 is 4 minutes 15 seconds.

Grand Forks Cycle Race Weekend

2010-07-28T14:29:00.000-07:00

To Grand Forks Gazette. Grand Event in Granby Valley.

Many thanks to the Grand Forks Cycling Club for the annual Granby valley July weekend cycle race festival for older riders – this year held 23rd to 25th July. Thanks also to the businesses who provided prizes and food donations. Riders ranged from mid-30s to age 76 including 5 women age 39 to 68. They came from as far afield as Victoria, Comox, Vancouver, Calgary, and Whitehorse. Many bring their partners to make a holiday of it in this scenic, peaceful region.

Olav Stana age 55, Vernon, a Norwegian Canadian and physiotherapist, was a breathtaking winner of the Friday evening hill climb up Hardy Mountain Rd. Olav also won the Saturday morning 40 k (25 mile) individual time trial on the North Fork Rd. in a world class time of 53 minutes 51 seconds. The winner on age standard was Mike McCann age 63 of Whitehorse with an actual time of 57 minutes 48 seconds. The Sunday morning road race however, up North Fork and down Granby and back, went to Derek Tripp age 60, a fish and wildlife biologist from Victoria. Riders in the road race start in 10 year age groups with the oldest going off first. A 60s quartet broke away from the others about half way and were never caught by the younger riders.

A glamourous touch to the road race was having a vintage police Harley Davidson as sweep up vehicle. Event hq and start/finish for all 3 races is Hutton School. For a colourful, exciting, healthy, athletic spectacle be sure to catch the Grand Forks Cycle Weekend next July. Hopes are that this Granby Valley race weekend will develop into a Pacific North West Masters/Seniors Championship.

The Grand Forks Cycle Weekend is cosponsored by the B.C. Masters Cycling Association whose president is Bill Yearwood age 58 Vancouver a high profile aviation safety investigator. Both the Grand Forks C.C. and the B.C.M.C.A. welcome riders of all ages and abilities. You don’t have to be a dedicated top racer to join in the fun.

Yours sincerely,
David Mercer age 67 Victoria. A.k.a. Dr. Velociraptor. Phone: (778) 430-0646

Age Standards: Various Charts Generated

2010-07-22T11:42:00.000-07:00

In order to give plausible age standard times for the various Australian pursuit road races in the BCMCA schedule it is necessary to use a set of different charts. The principles behind each chart remain the same. As base time estimate the time the hypothetical ‘average’ 35 year old male would take who can do a 10 mile individual time trial in 24 minutes (VTTA standard) Then derive the standards for 45, 55, 65, etc, by adding on the traditional BCMCA starting gaps, viz. 3, 4, 5, minutes respectively. Following my suggestion add 7, 9, and 11 minutes respectively to derive the standards for 75, 85, and 95.

For the current (2005 – 2010) BCMCA road races in range of distance/duration a set of 5 age standard charts for group racing is necessary and sufficient. The basic chart is that for approximately 64 k (40 miles) - Maple Bay, Cedar/Yellow Point N. – i.e. a duration for Derek Tripp (age 60) or David Mercer (age 67) of about 1-50-00. Some courses will be about 5% shorter (distance/duration), e.g. Metchosin – Derek Tripp (age 60) time circa 1-45-0. Some 5% longer, e.g. 2010 Cobble Hill – D.T. (D.M.) time c. 1-55-0. Some 10% longer – D.T. (D.M.) time c. 2-0-0. Some 15% longer, e.g. Penticton – D.T. time c. 2-5-0. Call the basic Maple Bay chart B. The 5% shorter chart is A, the 5% longer, 10% longer, and 15% longer charts are C, D, and E respectively.

Charts A, C, D, and E are derived straightforwardly from the basic B chart. Take the appropriate percentage of the B 35 year old, 45, 55, etc. times. Take the appropriate percentage of the B yearly increments for each 10 year age group. (34 – 30 years have progressively less increments than 35 –39 in keeping with VTTA standards.)

Outside the range of 5% shorter than 64 k Maple Bay/ D.T.Time 1-50-0 – 15% longer it is no longer reasonable to employ the customary BCMCA 10 year start gaps of 7 minutes (70s after 80s), 6 minutes (60s after 70s), 5 minutes (50s after 60s), 4 minutes (40s after 50s), and 3 minutes (30s after 40s). Outside the range 5% shorter – 15% longer than base it is necessary to use different 10 year start gaps.

Dr. Velociraptor Lapses.

2010-07-22T11:33:00.000-07:00

I apologise for again not getting the medals to the event – this time the Comox Dove Creek omnium. (Medals for missed events will be publicly awarded at subsequent events.) Unfortunately I have not yet managed to drag myself into the 1990s. So I hadn’t checked my email for over a week when I decided Friday night to confirm the weekend race schedule. To my chagrin the Saturday morning hill climb individual time trial had been moved back 2 hours requiring a 5 am rising for the long drive. Also, owing to computer illiteracy I was unable to access the race bible (to ascertain race hq) through Google, and there was no phone number or directory listing for the race organizer. Then I was reliably informed that none of the events could count towards the overall since the road race was not an Australian pursuit but divided like the crit into separate A and B races, and there was no previous form for the hill climb.

In pique and frustration at 10 pm Friday night I decided, “To hell with it. I’m not going. Save myself $200. Catch up on my music and writing. Etc.” Even from a selfish viewpoint this was a bad decision, since reactive, which I regretted the next morning. More broadly and shamefully I was not considering that I was letting down others who were counting on me for the medals.

Moral: check your email at least every 3 days; don’t leave confirmation of the race schedule until the night before; don’t just think of yourself. I probably need to think more of the virtue of serving rather than the ego of winning. There is more to life than cycle racing. But there is more to cycle racing than winning.

Woefully behind with race descriptions and Velociraptor competition results and standings – another of my flaws is overestimating what I can do. Hopefully, the race free weekend August 8th will enable me to catch up. For now know that Steve Bachop 45, Emile De Rosnay 37, and Louis Watson 33 are doing well in the A men scratch. David Mercer 67, and Bill Yearwood 58 are leaders in the A men comprehensive age standards. Rino De Biasio 76, and Stephen Muir 48 are near the front in all 3 B men competitions: Australian pursuit, scratch, and comprehensive age standard.

Points are from 10 for 1st down to 1 for 10th in all 5 season-long Velociraptor competitions. Every BCMCA event counts in all the Velociraptor Competitions whether hill climb, criterium, or A/B road race – not just Australian pursuit road races and time trials – even if the event does not count toward the BCMCA overall. Try out the BCMCA events which are distant from your home region. Yes it’s expensive and time consuming but view it as a break, a mini-holiday. Take a partner, friend, or family. Make contact with other racing cyclists. Enjoy the ambience. Encourage cycling friends, runners, triathletes, etc. who are not dedicated racing cyclists to race for fun and fitness. Emphasise that BCMCA caters for all ages and abilities. Point out that BCMCA races are safer than sanctioned cycle races and club league races. Draw attention to the Adonis and Aphrodite qualities of BCMCA members.

Mental Health and Physical Exercise

2010-07-04T15:54:00.000-07:00

One of the aids to mental health is regular physical exercise (see blog ‘Mental Health and Critical Thinking’ 7/1/10). I have monitored the effects of various forms of physical exercise on my own mental state over about 20 years. Also, I have compared these effects with the effectiveness or benefits of other common aids to mental health or forms of treatment. Here are some of my (albeit subjective) findings.

1.Strenuous physical exercise gives a more significant psychological boost or uplift than non-strenuous exercise. By ‘strenuous’ I mean pushing the lungs and heart to near maximum, the point where conversation is not possible. Thus, strenuous exercise is different from jogging, swimming, cycling, playing tennis, soccer, etc., well within oneself.

2. Strenuous bursts of exercise lasting 30 seconds or less are not so psychologically boosting or uplifting as ones lasting 2-6 minutes or more.

3. 1½ hours of (mainly) 4 or 5 minute intervals may give as much psychological boost as 45 minutes all-out effort. The 1½ hours of intervals may include some short 30 seconds intervals.

4. The psychological boost of strenuous physical exercise does not increase significantly above 2½ hours exercise session.

5. The psychological boost of strenuous exercise includes the following: calm; greater optimism; self-confidence; resilience – feeling more able to cope with inevitable, unexpected setbacks and present known challenges; getting things in perspective – some mistakes, problems, deficiencies, injustices, setbacks seem less catastrophic; greater acceptance of life’s imperfections and misfortunes; joy in simple things – clouds, trees, having hot and cold running water, clean safe accommodation, friends, health.
The psychological boost attained by strenuous physical exercise is qualitatively similar to the uplift given by tranquilisers and anti-depressants (when these are working well, i.e. no flat affect, no disruptions of concentration, unpleasant side effects).

6. The psychological boost given by strenuous exercise lasts the rest of the day but is not significantly felt the next day. In order to maintain psychological boost through strenuous physical exercise 3 workouts per week are necessary. These strenuous workouts should be a minimum of 30 minutes all-out or 1 hour interval sessions.

7. It is difficult to separate the psychological boost given by a particular form of strenuous exercise from other psychological benefits associated with that activity, e.g. certain kinds of cycle interval training and success in cycle road racing.

8. Some fortunate individuals can maintain reasonable psychological well-being without strenuous exercise. For those who are prone to mental health problems a physical exercise program may be necessary, working up to strenuous physical exercise. It may be that strenuous physical exercise is more necessary for males than for females for physiological reasons.

9. Psychological well-being - buoyancy, resilience, feelings of adequacy, competence, joy in life, enjoyment of life – cannot be maintained solely or mainly by strenuous physical exercise. Inner self-satisfaction is probably a more important component of psychological well-being/mental health. You have to regularly engage in, commit yourself to, an activity which on analysis, criticism, and reflection it is reasonable to hold as worthwhile, as being of intrinsic value. Such intrinsically worthwhile activities might include community service, learning another language, scientific investigation, practicing art, writing, learning the piano. To many, some activities, though reasonably pleasant and satisfying (and more worthy than, say, watching tv, playing bingo, or going to shopping malls or garage sales) might not seem ultimately very worthwhile/of intrinsic value, e.g. collecting country and western (or jazz, classical, or rock) records, gardening, fishing, going on a cruise, hiking, mountain climbing, foreign travel, playing soccer or golf, establishing provincial age running records.

In questions of value it is difficult to separate out bias, mere personal taste, and snobbery. For instance, is being an expert ballet dancer of more intrinsic value than being a good model aeroplane builder?

Mental Health and Critical Thinking

2010-07-01T15:53:00.000-07:00

Like many I have had mental health problems throughout much of my life. My mental health challenges or weaknesses include anxiety, depression, low self-esteem (self-berating, self-annoyance, feeling inadequate and incompetent), obsessive-compulsive traits, emotional neediness, and insomnia. Such psychic disturbances are experienced by all at some time or other – they are part of the natural response to inevitable setbacks in life. Whether or not anxiety, depression, etc. constitute mental illness depends on their severity, frequency, and persistence. Although everyone will experience some anxiety, depression, and so on, some will be more predisposed by a combination of genes and childhood training to have psychic problems in an acute or chronic form.

There are a number of aids people employ in order to maintain mental health or alleviate or cope with mental illness, or weakness (flaws, dysfunction). These aids include: physical exercise; creative activity – art, music, writing; meditation, Tai Chi, yoga; attention to diet; medication; religion; talk therapy – which may involve developing emotional awareness of self and others, and exposing oneself to discomfort and response modification. In addition, there are social factors, not so much within the agent’s control, which greatly help mental well-being, self-confidence, resilience, and mood, e.g. money, leisure, security, friends, having a good job, finding a romantic partner, social appreciation and status.

As part of my mental health regimen I have tried all of these aids except religion. (I have studied, explored, and tried to understand religions but never been a believer or practitioner.) Buying into an authority figure (or institution) who purports to have the definite answers – beyond questioning, intersubjective evidence and testing, clarifying terms – brings comfort and meaning to most human beings. Personally, though, I think it healthier individually and socially, and more noble, to learn to accept some uncertainty, not knowing, differences in belief, priorities, preferences, and perspective. Submitting to a religion, authority figure, institution or guru provides a security blanket but why not learn to deal with life without one, without simplistic, dogmatic rules? Instead of giving way to the tribe/herd/guru-follower mentality why not develop careful, open, critical thinking even though this involves work and discomfort?

Letting go of the self, merging oneself with beauty, goodness, kindness, justice, universal love, connexion with all things is a beneficial practice. Such an attitude, however, is different from dogmatically embracing beliefs and rules asserted by some human being as self-proclaimed agent of God or Divine revelation, or as a guru whose alleged insights are beyond logical or conceptual thought, or the need for evidence and questioning.

Even if it were empirically established that those who believed in, say, the Greek Orthodox faith, (or Jungianism, say), were significantly happier than those who did not would this be sufficient for becoming a member of the Greek Orthodox Church (or a Jungian)? If it could be empirically established that you personally would be happier if you became a member of the Greek Orthodox Church (or a Jungian) would this be sufficient ground for learning to suppress open, critical thinking and inculcating wholehearted (unshakeable, unfalsifiable) belief? If you would be happier given a lobotomy would you have one?

All-Inclusive Age Standards

2010-06-29T15:46:00.000-07:00

Often, in a given 5 year age category there are only 1 – 3 riders. It boosts incentive and interest if there are plausible, comprehensive, carefully worked out individual age standards for any race – Australian pursuit, massed start, hill climb (whether individual start, Australian pursuit, or massed start), or criterium (whether 25, 20, or 15 year spread). For any race a rider will have a reasonably objective, meaningful standard for comparing his performance with that of any other rider in the race including those significantly younger than he but in his own 10 year starting group.

It is easy to get overfocussed on times, results, competition. ‘Just enjoy the ride and athletic exhilaration’ is a useful reminder. Does it really matter if you are fastest in your own 5 or 10 year age group? For some a chief goal of cycle racing is to have a good work out and maintain mental and physical buoyancy and vitality rather than get ego gratification through beating the other guy. However, even with the former attitude it is useful to know where you stand in relation to other riders, your particular age, own past performance, and own particular athletic goals.

Age standards (allowances) for a massed start will be less (faster) than those for an Australian pursuit format for the same course or distance. More drafting benefit in the former. Similarly, age standards (allowances) for an Australian pursuit will be less (faster) than for an individual time trial format.

A,B, and C Riders.

2010-06-29T15:11:00.000-07:00

Part of Velociraptor cycling philosophy is to promote lifelong cycle racing for all ability levels. In order to provide interest and incentive for less gifted or less dedicated riders the new Velociraptor season-long competitions – scratch, and all-inclusive age standard (separate from our regular BCMCA overall) – will have separate divisions for male A and B riders.

Clearly there is no sharp divide between lower-level A rider and upper-level B rider. I propose the following criteria for an A rider – male.
In the fastest 25-30% of riders (who race more than 10 times per year) in his 5 or 10 year age group in time trials, hill climbs, and sprints.
Surpasses the following age standards for 16 k (10 mile) or 40 k (25 mile) individual time trials on an average course.
30. 23-00 57-30
35. 23-10 58-10
40. 23-30 59-00
45. 23-50 1-0-0
50. 24-15 1-1-0
55. 24-40 1-2-0
60. 25-10 1-3-0
65. 25-45 1-4-30
70. 26-25 1-6-30
75. 27-10 1-8-30
80. 28-10 1-11-0
85. 29-30 1-14-0
90. 30-50 1-17-30.
Exact standards for each year can be extracted by interpolation.

We should welcome and encourage riders who because of genetic endowment, physical disability, medical condition, or time constraints cannot match the performance of regular B riders. If we regularly attract 10+ male riders who do not meet B standards I will introduce separate competitions – scratch, and all-inclusive age standard - for a C division.

I propose the following criteria for a B rider – male.
In the fastest 60 –80% of riders (who race more than 10 times per year) in his 5 or 10 year age group in time trials, hill climbs, and sprints.
Surpasses the following age standards for 16 k (10 mile) or 40 k (25 mile) time trials on an average course.
30. 26-00 1-6-0
35. 26-20 1-7-0
40. 26-40 1-8-0
45. 27-00 1-9-0
50. 27-30 1-10-0
55. 28-00 1-11-30
60. 28-30 1-13-00
65. 29-10 1-14-40
70. 30-00 1-16-30
75. 31-00 1-18-30
80. 32-20 1-21-0
85. 33-50 1-25-0
90. 35-30 1-29-30.
Again, exact standards for each year can be extracted by interpolation.

Separate divisions within female riders will be introduced as we get more women riders.

Please let me know before March your best performance of the previous season and if you think you should be in the A or B division.

Welcoming Recreational Racers

2010-06-22T13:42:00.000-07:00

Encouraging people to ride BCMCA events who have neither desire, time, nor ability to become winning riders within their age group, broadens support for cycle racing. Broader participation in cycle racing is connected with increased awareness of, and popularity of, cycling as a viable, commuting, shopping, touring option. This in turn has individual, social, economic, and environmental benefits.

Cycle racing should encourage participation by riders who are not top athletes but who still want an exhilarating, satisfying, athletic experience. Cycle racing should include not just dedicated, genetically endowed, specialists pushing themselves to the limit but those who want more mellow, fun, recreational racing. Cycle racing could attract a broader range of participants as do 10 k runs, marathons, triathlons, soccer, baseball, etc.

Cycle racing at a top amateur level for any age group is a very demanding sport. However, I maintain cycle racing should focus on the average guy not on developing an elite who can compete at national, international, or Olympic level. Cycle racing should be an available option to any boy or girl, man or woman, or senior who is looking for a group sporting activity for fitness and all-round wellbeing. Cycle racing can be promoted more as a fun activity for people of all ages and ability levels. It does not have to be presented as an extreme sport for fanatics and super athletes.

Racing cyclists should do more to encourage and welcome 35-45 year old males who get a sense of personal achievement and satisfaction from beating 1-15-00 for a 40 k (25 mile) individual time trial (32 kph/20mph). Similarly for 55-65 year old males happy to beat 1-20-00 (30 kph) for a 25, and 75 year olds glad to be alive, active, and still beating 1-26-00 (28 kph/17.5 mph) for a 25. One can admire the performance of older elite BC racing cyclists like Don Gillmore, Olaf Stana, Emile de Rosnay, Derek Tripp, etc. yet still have appreciation and respect for the average guy not at peak fitness, not racing flat out, and still managing to fit bike racing into a busy schedule.

We need to avoid the attitude: ‘I can’t win, therefore I won’t get any respect or recognition, therefore I won’t bother competing, I’ll just look inferior.’ We can remind ourselves there are many other worthy activities and achievements in life besides prowess in bike racing.

The emphasis should be on creditable performance not on winning. Someone who finishes 35th may be contributing as much to the sport and society as one who finishes 5th. In cycle racing we tend to admire riders who can ‘suffer’, push themselves to the limit, but there is a place for appreciating those who can turn out strenuous rides, have a good work out, but keep themselves within limits. On the running track for instance I can learn to enjoy doing a 400m in 1-30 rather than busting my guts to beat 1-15. Competition need not mean being in the first 3 but can mean reaching a certain standard given limited training time, and without riding oneself into the ground.

We should be welcoming in cycle races riders of moderate ability who do not have top equipment. We should be attracting cycle commuters, randonnneurs, cycle tourists, etc. who want to race only once a month. People could be encouraged to race even if they have only a commuter, touring, or winter bike. A hill climb, 10 or 25 mile time trial, or 64 k road race should be just as available to the average sports/fitness minded person as a 10 k run, half marathon, or local soccer league.

Apologies for Delay in Results,etc.

2010-06-09T15:51:00.000-07:00

Apologies for Delay in Results, etc.
There are 2 Velociraptor auxiliary competitions, new for 2010, for BCMCA races: Velociraptors Scratch; Velociraptors Group Ride Age Handicap. These are divided into an Elite (A), and Regular (B) division, and into Men and Women. They are in addition to the main BCMCA overall competition, and 5 and 10 year age group competitions.
Hill climbs and crits – all races – will count in these auxiliary Velociraptor season-long competitions.
Classification as Elite or Regular is not a reflection of your capability but rather on the amount of time you are willing or able to put into training. E.g. Roland Buehler (Guitars Plus) is clearly a natural elite rider but currently has limited time for training and racing due to business and family commitments.
Please let me know if you think I have got you (or someone else) in the wrong category.
For each race I also nominate a Best Overall Performance – not necessarily the actual fastest or first to finish. I consult with very experienced, active members such as Bill Yearwood and Duane Martindale.
I am getting a list of Year of Birth for all BCMCA riders. Hence full results and race descriptions for 2010 so far will be posted here by June 17th.
Good racing and Best wishes to all of you!

Massed Start Group Age Standards

2010-06-09T15:08:00.000-07:00

Velociraptor Individual Group Ride Age Standards for Massed Start (or ability pursuit, i.e. non-age based Australian Pursuit). Regular Length (i.e. 64 k)
We might like to try the massed start format occasionally (instead of 5 small ten year age groups). Also, we may wish to try an Australian pursuit based on ability not age (e.g. 3 or 4 groups starting at 2 or 3 minute intervals, slowest group off first). In these cases the following comprehensive age chart could be used.
Large gaps between 10 year age groups are eliminated since this format does not embody age group start gaps. Yearly increments are slightly diminished to offset the benefit of increased drafting.

30. 1-45-35
31. 1-45-36
32. 1-45-39
33. 1-45-44
34. 1-45-51
35. 1-46-00
36. 1-46-11
37. 1-46-22
38. 1-46-33
39. 1-46-44
Increments 35-39 are 11 seconds. Increments 39-49: 13 seconds.
40. 1-46-57
41. 1-47-10
42. 1-47-23
43. 1-47-36
44. 1-47-49
45. 1-48-02
46. 1-48-15
47. 1-48-28
48. 1-48-41
49. 1-48-54
Increments 49-59: 17 seconds.
50. 1-49-11
51. 1-49-28
52. 1-49-45
53. 1-50-02
54. 1-50-19
55. 1-50-36
56. 1-50-53
57. 1-51-10
58. 1-51-27
59. 1-51-44
Increments 59-69: 21 seconds.
60. 1-52-05
61. 1-52-26
62. 1-52-47
63. 1-53-08
64. 1-53-29
65. 1-53-50
66. 1-54-11
67. 1-54-32
68. 1-54-53
69. 1-55-14
Increments 69-79: 31 seconds.
70. 1-55-45
71. 1-56-16
72. 1-56-47
73. 1-57-18
74. 1-57-49
75. 1-58-20
76. 1-58-51
77. 1-59-22
78. 1-59-53
79. 2-00-24
Increments 79-89: 41 seconds. Thus, standard for 80 is 2-01-05, etc.

This massed start age standard chart could easily be adapted for events of shorter (hill climbs) or longer duration (72+ k road races).
Note that under BCMCA rules (given standard 10 year starting gaps) in group riding a woman is classed with a male 15 years her senior. But in time trials she is classed with a male 8 years her senior.
If this massed start age standard chart seems unduly hard on 70s + we could build in bonus start gaps between the decades, e.g. 39-40 20seconds; 49-50 30seconds; 59-60 40 seconds; 69-70 1 minute; 79-80 1 and ½ minutes.

Group Hill Climb Age Standards

2010-06-09T15:04:00.000-07:00

Velociraptor Individual Group Ride Age Standards for Australian Pursuit Hill Climbs. Appropriately shortened starting gaps.
Shawnigan Lake: 60s 2 minutes after 70s; 50s 1 and1/2 minutes;
40s 1 minute after 50s; 30s 30 seconds after 40s. Penticton (suggested): 60s 2-40 after 70s; 50s 2 minutes after 60s; 40s 1-20 after 50s; 30s 40 seconds after 40s.
Shawnigan Lake h.c.: Time taken by hypothetical average 35 year old approx. 26-27 minutes. Hence take individual group ride age standards to be ¼ of those for regular (64 k ) Australian pursuit road race course.
Similarly for Penticton climb take standards to be 1/3 of those for regular road race.
Other hill climbs will be rated accordingly. I will consult with Duane Martindale, Bill Yearwood, etc.
The philosophy is that all rides should count to the overall since a long hill climb is just as hard as a road race, and sometimes there is only one or no other rider in your 5 year age category.

Group Ride Age Standards for Longer Races

2010-06-09T14:52:00.000-07:00

Velociraptor Individual Group Ride Age Standards for Australian Pursuit. Longer Courses (72-80 k instead of regular 64 k).
Add approx. 10% to yearly increments and 10 year age gaps for regular courses chart.
Note: racing age is not your age on the day of the race. It is the age you attain during the current calendar year.

30. 1-56-01
31. 1-56-04
32. 1-56-09
33. 1-56-16
34. 1-56-25
35. 1-56-36
36. 1-56-49
37. 1-57-02
38. 1-57-15
39. 1-57-28
Gap between 39 and 40 is 1-03. 35-39 increments 13 seconds.
40. 1-58-31
41. 1-58-47
42. 1-59-03
43. 1-59-19
44. 1-59-35
45. 1-59-51
46. 2-00-07
47. 2-00-23
48. 2-00-39
49. 2-00-55
Gap between 49 and 50 is 1-39. 40-49 increments are 16 seconds.
50. 2-02-34
51. 2-02-54
52. 2-03-14
53. 2-03-34
54. 2-03-54
55. 2-04-14
56. 2-04-34
57. 2-04-54
58. 2-05-14
59. 2-05-34
Gap between 59 and 60 is 2-10. 50-59 increments are 20 seconds.
60. 2-07-44
61. 2-08-08
62. 2-08-32
63. 2-08-56
64. 2-09-20
65. 2-09-44
66. 2-10-08
67. 2-10-32
68. 2-10-56
69. 2-11-20
Gap between 69 and 70 is 3-11. 60-69 increments are 24 seconds.
70. 2-14-31
71. 2-15-06
72. 2-15-41
73. 2-16-16
74. 2-16-51
75. 2-17-26
76. 2-18-01
77. 2-18-36
78. 2-19-11
79. 2-19-46
Gap between 79 and 80 is 3-46. 70-79 increments are 35 seconds. 80-89 increments are 46 seconds. Thus, standard for 80 is 2-23-32, etc.

Velociraptor Group Riding Comprehensive Age Standards

2010-05-15T14:11:00.000-07:00

In effect BCMCA 10 year starting gaps of 6 minutes for 60s after 70s down to 3 minutes for 30s after 40s incorporate group riding age standards but only for exact multiples of 10 year differences in age. I offer the following comprehensive individual age standards for group starts to supplement the BCMCA Australian pursuit (or even mass starts). The Australian pursuit age format remains the main competition. However, yearly age standard times (as well as actual times) are also given to each finisher to add incentive and interest.

In the present unsupplemented age handicapping in group races the rider who is at the top age (oldest) of his starting group is at a disadvantage compared with the rider who is at the bottom age (youngest) of the same or another group (particularly for 10 year or more starting groups).
Examples:
A 59 year old finishes 4 seconds behind a 51 year old.
A 49 year old finishes 4 seconds behind a 50 year old (in actual time the 49 year old is 3-56 faster the 50s having a 4 minute start over the 40s).
A 59 year old finishes 4 seconds behind a 41 year old.
In examples like these it is reasonable to hold that the rider who finishes 4 seconds behind has beaten the other on age standard.

To supplement the basic system:
Take the hypothetical average 35 year old male rider who does a 25 mile tt in 1-04-00. Assume he will do a 64 k Australian pursuit starting with other 30 year olds (some faster some slower than he ) on a somewhat hilly course in 1-46-00. Our start gaps imply a similar 45 year old male will take 1-49-00, a 55 year old 1-53-00, a 65 year old 1-58-00, and a 75 year old 2-04-00.
Now use the base times for 35, 45, 55, and 65 year old male riders to generate standards for all ages male and female. The following conditions should be met. Yearly increments should increase with age yet remain the same within the same age start group. The gaps between the top of one age group and the bottom of the next oldest age group should increase with age. Yearly increments should be about 35% (for 40s) of those for individual time trial of same length, 40% (for 60s), up to 60% for 70s and 80s – benefit of drafting offset by somewhat hillier course, drafting benefit decreases for slower, older riders. When the age difference between rider in one 10 year start group and rider in adjacent start group is greater than 10 (can be up to 19) then difference on standard should be greater than start gap between the two groups. When the age difference between rider in one 10 year start group and rider in adjacent start group is less than 10 (can be down to 1) then difference on standard should be less than the start gap between the two groups.
The following chart is about the only one which plausibly meets the conditions.

For moderately hilly circuits of about 64 k (40 miles). Males.

30. 1-45-30
31. 1-45-32
32. 1-45-36
33. 1-45-42
34. 1-45-50
35. 1-46-00
36. 1-46-12
37. 1-46-24
38. 1-46-36
39. 1-46-48
35-39 increments 12 seconds. Gap between 39 and 40 is 57 seconds.
40. 1-47-45
41. 1-48-00
42. 1-48-15
43. 1-48-30
44. 1-48-45
45. 1-49-00
46. 1-49-15
47. 1-49-30
48. 1-49-45
49. 1-50-00.
40-49 increments 15 seconds. Gap between 49 and 50 is 1-30.
50. 1-51-30
51. 1-51-48
52. 1-52-06
53. 1-52-24
54. 1-52-42
55. 1-53-00
56. 1-53-18
57. 1-53-36
58. 1-53-54
59. 1-54-12.
Gap between 59 and 60 is 1-58. 50-59 increments are 18 seconds.
60. 1-56-10
61. 1-56-32
62. 1-56-54
63. 1-57-16
64. 1-57-38
65. 1-58-00
66. 1-58-22
67. 1-58-44
68. 1-59-06
69. 1-59-28.
Gap between 69 and 70 is 2-52. 60-69 increments are 22 seconds.
70. 2-2-20
71. 2-2-52
72. 2-3-24
73. 2-3-56
74. 2-4-28
75. 2-5-00
76. 2-5-32
77. 2-6-04
78. 2-6-36
79. 2-7-08.
Gap between 79 and 80 is 3-22. 70-79 increments are 32 seconds.
80. 2-10-30
81. 2-11-12
82. 2-11-54
83. 2-12-36
84. 2-13-18
85. 2-14-00
86. 2-14-42
87. 2-15-24
88. 2-16-06
89. 2-16-48.
Gap between 89 and 90 is 3-52. 80-89 increments are 42 seconds.
90. 2-20-40
91. 2-21-32
92. 2-22-24
93. 2-23-16
94. 2-24-08
95. 2-25-00
96. 2-25-52
97. 2-26-44
98. 2-27-36
99. 2-28-28.
Gap between 99 and 100 about 4-30. 90-99 increments are 52 seconds.

Notice I have increased the age allowance for 70s and older. This is because even good 70s riders like Eric Rayson, Dave Emery, and John Smith have been unable to get into the top 10 Australian pursuit. If 70s improve we could revert to the original gaps, i.e. a 75 standard of 2-04-00, and an 85 standard of 2-11-00.

This Velociraptor group riding age standard chart could be adjusted for courses which are significantly different in length and time from the 64 k (40 mile) standard. For example add 10% to all age standards for the Langley Phoenix Velo Thunderbird race. The chart is easily modified to accommodate massed start (non-Australian pursuit) – start with the same base of 1-46-00 for the hypothetical average 35 year old male, and make the gap between 39 and 40 the same as the 40s yearly increments, the gap between 49 and 50 the same as the 50s yearly increments, etc. This would enable us to have massed start hill climbs with age standard results. For instance a massed start Shawnigan hill climb would be 25% of the massed start 64 k age standards, Penticton hill climb would be 33%. Incidentally, hill climbs with riders setting off individually can easily be fitted into present age standards – simply incorporate the time trial standards from a time trial of similar duration.

The Velociraptor group riding age standard for a woman is that of a male 15 years her senior.

The Velociraptor group riding age standard chart can easily be modified for courses where the age group start gaps are different from our standard ones – e.g. an Australian pursuit Shawnigan hill climb.

At 67 I feel the decline setting in and so I am more motivated to come up with comprehensive age standards to give me something to race for even though I don’t have a hope of keeping up with guys 30 years younger.

Circuit of Lake Quamichan (Maple Bay) Sunday May 2nd 2010

2010-05-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

There is an English pub name which captures the flavour of Australian pursuit cycle road races – ‘The Hare and Hounds’. The thrill of the chase. Often there is more uncertainty, excitement, and drama in Australian pursuit than in regular road racing. Many races within the race. How many of the faster chasing groups will catch me? Will I be caught by just a few from the faster groups or by most of a group? Will voracious chasers get me in their sights with only 5 k to go? How long can I hold out or hold on?

In the Circuit of Lake Quamichan new sexagenarian Derek Tripp again set a lung bursting pace from the start, riding away from Ray Morrison and David Mercer, leaving them gasping, legs buckling, on the first lap main climb after about 10k. However, for the next 2 laps Morrison and Mercer had the incentive of seeing Derek in the distance until he vanished over the horizon like dreams of youthful vigour.

The fast men of the 30s, 40s, and 50s groups were holding together and pushing well but none could absorb the leaders of the group in front. Yet the lead five of the 50s were within 19 seconds of scooping up all but Derek Tripp at the finish. Also, powerful 40s duo Bob Cameron and Steve Bachop were only 30 seconds behind the 50s leaders. Another 5k and the race would have had quite a different ending.

The most exciting sub race was in the 50s. Martin Willock got a gap a few times in the closing kilometers before awing his fellows with an audacious jump on the last corner with 500 m still to go. As at Langley 50s riders had praise for Ray Wagner’s work in leading the chase – another fittingly Wagnerian performance.

Good to see track stalwarts Malcolm Faulkner and James Holtz adding colour to the road race taking on uncongenial terrain. Watch out when Jim breaks down and buys a carbon bike to replace his steel one to celebrate moving up to the 60s. Thanks to Dave Steen on the first corner for shouting out clear time checks.

Again gracious Duane Martindale, photo maestro, added pep to the 50s group before dropping out nonchalantly to assist better half Helen with the finish. The finish was also expertly handled by Lynda Bowden and Glenda Harling along with Nanaimo uber organizer and commissaire Peter McCaffery.

The gleaming, sculpted legal legs of Bob Cameron were on display to complement the prime exhibit of scenic Lake Quamichan in post-race Moose Rd. Lodge. 30s Shane Savage, Lois Watson, and Dan Larche looked like a trio of Titans yet could pull back only 1’ 22” on the scorching 40s twosome. Lone 70s lean but jovial John Smith fittingly teamed up with sole woman, charming Alix Reid who made a welcome return to racing only last year. Former hockey player John Guthrie 52 in only his second season of cycle racing has now moved up to elite class after excellent back to back 6th places.

Best performance went to Derek Tripp who riding in effect entirely alone gave up only 3’ 20’’ to a numerous and formidable 50s chasing group.

Photo pick: (Duane’s site) Page 4 50s sprint. Page 6 30s sprint.

Velociraptors Scratch Points.

1. Louis Watson 1 40’ 32’’ (actual time) 10 points
2. Shane Savage 1 40’ 32” 9 points
3.Dan Larche same time 8 points 4. Bob Cameron 1 41’ 54” 7
5. Steve Bachop same time 6
6. Jason Eagles 1 44’ 50” 5
7. Martin Willock 1 45’ 24” 4
8. Steve Crowley same time 3
9. John Guthrie same time 2
10. Mike Sevcov same time 1 point.

Velociraptors Age Standard Points
See Group Ride Age Standards blog for details.
Actual Time Age Standard Points
1. David Mercer 67 1-50-09 + 8-35 10
2. Mike Sevcov 57 1-45-24 + 8-12 9
3. Bill Yearwood 58 1-45-54 + 8-00 8
4. Martin Willock 56 1-45-24 + 7-54 7
5. Derek Tripp 60 1-48-44 + 7-26 6
6. Bob Cameron 45 1-41-54 + 7-06 5
7. Steve Bachop 45 1-41-54 + 7-06 4
8. John Guthrie 52 1-45-54 + 6-42 3
8. Michael Stoehr 55 1-46-18 + 6-42 3
10. Ray Morrison 61 1-50-05 + 6-27 1
11. Ray Wagner 51 1-45-24 + 6-24
12. Steve Crowley 50 1-45-24 + 6-06
13. Dan Larche 38 1-40-32 + 6-04
14. Steve Munro 50 1-45-41 + 5-49
15. Shane Savage 35 1-40-32 + 5-28
16. Louis Watson 33 1-40-32 + 5-10

Note: first 16 Australian Pursuit spread 3-48.
First 16 Velociraptors Age Standard spread 3-25

Velociraptors Regular/Non-Elite Points.

1. Lionel Gaudet 10 points
2. Ron Shick 9
3. James Holtz 8
4. Barton Bourassa 7
5. John Smith 6
6. Harry Balke 5 points
7. Ian Birch 4
8. Malcom Faulkner 3
9. Ian Harper 2
10. Wayne Shtybel 1

Womens Velociraptors Points

Alix Reid gets maximum 10 points in all three Velociraptors Points Competitions.

Please let me know of errors in times, age, etc. and if you think you are allocated to wrong Elite/Regular category. As a rough guide I am taking a 50 year old who does a 10 mile tt at over 40 kph to be Elite.

Happiness: Analysis of.

2009-11-30T16:28:00.000-08:00

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.

Greed: Analysis of

2009-11-05T16:07:00.000-08:00

‘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.

Democracy

2009-10-22T15:36:00.001-07:00

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.

Rule of Law

2009-10-09T16:12:00.000-07:00

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.

Nature and Extent of Individual Responsibility

2009-09-23T14:07:00.000-07:00

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?

Cycling and Philosophy. Meeting.

2009-08-11T14:16:00.000-07:00

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

Velociraptors and Cycle Racing

2009-08-10T13:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Velociraptors and Philosophy

2009-08-09T13:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Race Photos, Results, Duane Martindale.

2009-08-02T14:22:00.000-07:00

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.

Courtney Arcadian Omnium Sat/Sun July 11 -12 2009

2009-07-22T14:04:00.000-07:00

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.

Kelowna Cherry Kermesse Sat/Sun July 4-5th 2009

2009-07-21T14:15:00.000-07:00

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.

Metchosin Australian Pursuit Cycle Race June 28th 2009

2009-07-02T16:46:00.000-07:00

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.

Criticising Religion

2009-06-22T16:48:00.000-07:00

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.

Keeping up with Bill

2009-06-18T16:27:00.000-07:00

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.

Mill Bay and Shawnigan Hill Climbs 2009

2009-06-16T14:36:00.000-07:00

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.

Nanaimo River Rd. Team Time Trial 2009

2009-06-16T11:01:00.000-07:00

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.

Deep Cove Road Race 31st May 2009

2009-06-15T15:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Age Handicapped Criteriums

2009-06-15T14:52:00.000-07:00

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.

Cedar Weekend Cycle Race Classic Vancouver Island BC

2009-06-01T15:26:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

Executive compensation and motivation

2009-05-18T11:31:00.000-07:00

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).

Cycling legitimacy and cycle racing

2009-05-13T21:03:00.000-07:00

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