Today was the Tour of Flanders, one of European cycling’s spring classics, and one of the season’s first true tests. This year’s race was won by Tom Boonen, and American hopeful George Hincapie could manage no better than winning the group sprint for seventh. Lance Armstrong finished with the peleton in 28th, and while this was well-reported in the American media what these stories miss is that Armstrong was nothing more than a domestique for Discovery teammate Hincapie. Simply put, Armstrong did not start the race with the intention of attempting to win it. Armstrong was involved in several chases, but his participation was in support of Hincapie. The American press had a similiarly ignorant reaction when Armstrong abandoned Paris-Nice due to illness. Nice was the first race of the season for Armstrong, and was nothing more than a guage of his training thus far. The retirement meant absolutely nothing to his chances in the Tour de France (and it’s also important to note that none of his rivals had even started their racing season at this point).
Posted on 3 April 2005
The first alleycat of the year is coming up April 17.
Springdandy Alleycat.
Posted on 2 April 2005
There are days on the bike when things converge into a single point of perfect motion — legs pumping like pistons, cranks spinning effortlessly, the current of traffic seemingly standing still as I pick and weave my way through it. There are, of course, also days when these feelings are fleeting, and lines are skewed.
Those days start with heavy traffic on Smithfield Street just outside the office. A car parked (illegally) surprises the unaware driver, and two lanes are blocked with no chance for escape. I snap out of the trackstand to just barely slither through the green light, only to snap back to a stop at Third Avenue. The signal changes, and the scene is repeated at Fourth Avenue, thanks to wandering pedestrians. There will be no rhythm found today.
Finally out of town and in the Strip District, I’m given the chance to stretch my legs and find a cadence. The moment is short-lived, as a truck turned left leaves no room next to the curb. I wait. I find the rhythm again as Smallman expands at the docks. As the road bottlenecks at 21st, I stake my claim to the center of the lane, and traffic fumes behind me — I won’t fight through the maze of potholes that litter my usual passage a few feet from the curb. Cars are piled up at the stop sign at 28th, and I slow down, looking for a slot to escape. A hippie in a Jetta is, literally, riding on the curb. I hop up to the sidewalk, giving him a brief sideways glance, and slip back into the street, and in a moment, I’m beyond the traffic. The cars thin in Lawrenceville, and soon I’m through 64th Street and spinning home.
Posted on 1 April 2005
Gelf Magazine has an interesting interview with outspoken Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban on the current Grokster case before the Supreme Court. I think I saw a lot of his views on this issue:
GM: You say that software doesn’t steal content, people steal content. So what do you think of the RIAA’s strategy of suing individual file-sharers?
MC: I have no problem with it at all. If you steal, you are wrong. You should have to deal with the consequences. We have plenty of laws on the book to make sure that happens.
I agree. While file-sharing and copyright infringement intersect, the problem spaces are entirely separate. I do, however, think the RIAA is an iron-fisted tyrant.
GM: Does the Betamax precedent apply to the Grokster case, even though people are using digital technology like Grokster to amass libraries, not just to tape shows and enhance viewing convenience?
MC: Yes. People amassed libraries on tape as well. You can pick up any movie-collector mag and see the ads to buy a VHS or DVD of any TV show ever made. That’s a big library, and those ads have been there for at least 10 years. The industry doesn’t care.
Again, he’s right.
Say what you will about Cuban and his management style, but you can’t deny he’s smary guy.
Posted on 31 March 2005
Twenty four hours later, and I’m riding through downtown in a t-shirt and rolled up jeans. I’m moving quickly, sliding between cars and pedestrians. I slide on to the drops and hammer through the light at Smithfield and Liberty, and quickly, barely breaking cadence, I lean left to 10th Street, and then right to Penn Avenue. Soon, the sun is at my back in the Strip District, my shadow stretching out in front of me, the pinwheel of my chainring measuring my pace.
Posted on 29 March 2005
Spring has come, bringing with her warmer temperatures, cloudy skies, and bouts of rain. I had managed to miss the showers this morning, the puddles in the playground across the street tranquil. My rain jacket was rolled up and strapped on my bag, and I was happily spinning along Butler Street with knickers, a long sleeve jersey, and a vest. Pure bliss. The roads were still damp from the early morning drizzle, and the strips of mud (a dirty reminder of the winter) sprayed my hands and arms, freckling them. As I entered the maze of downtown, the drizzle started again, but I was too close to the office to bother with the rain jacket.
Eight hours later. The sun has peeked out from behind the blanket of gray here and there, but the covers have been drawn again. The streets, at least those I can see from my window, are slowing drying. The rain jacket stays in place. I spin back out of time, reading traffic, timing lights, slipping in and out of the machinery of rush hour. The headwind picks up in the Strip District, and I dodge the ever-widening potholes on the skirt of Smallman Street. Back on Butler Street, it starts again — just a slight sprinkle, barely enough moisten the arms of my jersey. But a few blocks later, the rain falls in earnest, soaking my jersey. Too late to stop and put on the jacket now.
The switch is gradual. A few blocks later, I’m pedaling with a greater sense of purpose. Drops of rain gather on the brim of my helmet, and I promise, again, to buy a cap. I pick up my cadence, push my helmet down a bit, and lean forward. Soon, the blinders are on. I don’t notice the traffic as much — I’m just aware enough to know where the cars are, and where they are going, but I don’t the time to peer in the windows. The mud on the side of the road flicks off my tyres and on my shoes, lower legs, and face. As I pass the 62nd Street Bridge and approach the short rise near Baker Street, I’m out of my saddle earlier than the first telephone past the antiques store. I’ve got no interest in conserving energy. Despite the warmer temperatures, I can feel my arms, now soaked to the bone, cramping a bit. It doesn’t matter much though. A few minutes later, the rain slows a bit, and roll up to the house.
Posted on 28 March 2005
I’ve been rather active in the current current discussion about Terri Schindler-Schiavo. I’ve discovered that my opinions don’t fit well on either side of the argument, and I’ve been active because this sort of situation has been more than an ideological exercise for me in the past. But after several days of hard thought and discussion, I’ve reached the end of the road. There isn’t a positive outcome right now.
There is little doubt that Michael Schiavo could have provided better care for Terri. But it also seems that her parents went up and down the state court system in Florida to no avail, leading me to think that either there are serious problems with the family courts, or Mr. Schiavo’s care was not as terrible as some would have us believe. I’m having trouble determining which is the case, given that the versions of the facts that each side presents are so different.
The federal government, in the shape of Congress and the President, have gotten involved with S. 686, aimed specifically at getting the Schiavo matter into the federal court system. While there is proof that much of this is nothing more than political grandstanding, our legislators are painting themselves as warriors for the “culture of life” that is so important for the Republian party (note, however, that most conservatives, while fighting for Ms. Schiavo’s life, have no problem strapping criminals into the electric chair). While conservatives are framing this as protecting someone’s right to live, I see it (as does Joe Kearns) as encroaching on our ability to make medical decisions for our families.
For me, the issue at stake here is simple — is it morally permissible to allow someone who is sick to die? Are we morally obligated to poke holes in our loved ones to pump them full of food, oxygen, and medicine? What defines extra-ordinary medical measures? Fifty years ago (as Dr. Kearns so eloquently points out) we allowed our family members to pass away when they were sick, partially because medical technology couldn’t necessarily keep them alive, but also perhaps because that generation understood death (especially from a Christian perspective) a bit better. Conservatives have cried “Nazi” at this, claiming we are only a short step away from the eugenics of the Third Reich. We only slouch toward totalitarianism when the State cannot allow families to care for their own. Let us make the medical decisions for our loved ones. If someone believes this has been done in bad faith, the state court system can arbitrate those disagreements. A “culture of life” does not mean we cannot allow our loved ones to pass away.
But this is the end of the road for me on this topic. Any effort to find a bedrock moral compass for this issue will fail. There are only two conclusions to be draw — either we do everything possible in every situation to prolong life (whether or not the family or patient approves) or we simply do not care for the sick. Neither option is very palatable or, at least for me, morally appropriate. So I’m left with a grey area — one which I hope to never have to navigate again. But I’m done talking about it.
I leave this with Dahlia Lithwick’s take on our activist Congress
Posted on 22 March 2005
Some random Googling to answer a pop culture trivia question at work led me to find that Francis Ford Coppola is filming Jack Kerouac‘s On the Road. I had two academic obsessions in college — Ludwig Wittgenstein and Kerouac, so I’m interested to see what Coppola does with the book. I also discovered that Kerouac’s On the Road manuscript is currently on tour. That very long piece of paper has an interesting story which has led more than one critic to label Kerouac a “mere typist.”
Posted on 18 March 2005
I’ve been spending quit a bit of time thinking about the relationship of faith and participation in the Public Square. A critical part of this has been examining the Bible to find what God’s tells us about what our involvement should look like. As James Brink has already pointed out, this is essentially a theological endeavor, and therefore it is highly unlikely that we will ever come to the same conclusions about what reformational politics should be. Lately, I’ve been mulling over two passages in particular, Genesis 41 and the Beatitudes.
Genesis 41 is the more overtly political of the two passages. Joseph, a servant in Egypt, has been called to interpret the dreams of Pharoah. He foretells of seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine. Pharoah, impressed by Joseph, places him in charge of preparing the country for the famine. Joseph collects grain in every town and village, and when the famine does arrive, the State is able to sell the grain back to its citizens, and even to foreigners, and the effects of the famine are averted. God, through Joseph and the government of Egypt, cares for His people and provides for them in a time of need. Granted, this care did not come as handouts from the government (the grain was sold), but the people were cared for nonetheless. Pharoah did not shake his finger at his people, claiming they did not orepare themselves for the famine — he provided them what they needed.
The Beatitudes are, arguably, not overtly political. Jesus is teaching here, outlining the values that His followers should hold. But, as the Burkean Canuck has rightly pointed out, the Bible is often at its most political when not explicity discussing politics, and this is case here. Even Richard Muow has come to understand this, thanks to Kurt Vonnegut. One question I have always posed to conservative Christians is why don’t passages like Matthew 5 apply when you are involved in the political process? Why, as Christian in government, should you not heed Christ’s commands and care for your neighbor with the resources you have?
On a related note (and one that will require more thought): based on this discussion of the relationship of faith and science, do we need to have the same discussion about the relationship of faith and politics? Are we looking for explicit answers that aren’t necessarily there?
Posted on 15 March 2005
Petter Solberg has his championship campaign off to a fine start this season, and the Norwegian scored his second win of the year at this weekend’s Rally Mexico. Driving the 2005 spec Subaru Impreza in its debut, Solberg took the lead on SS1 and never looked back. While Peugeot’s Marcus Gronholm applied steady pressure on Leg 1, Peugeot management instructed Gronholm it was more important to bring his 307 to the finish ramp in the points rather than risk an off chasing Solberg. Despite Gronholm’s second place finish, it was good event for Peugeot, as Markko Martin has continued his consistent driving, finishing on the podium in third place. Sebastien Loeb, after damaging his Citroen during the shakedown, started well, but more problems with his Xsara left him well down the order at the end of Leg 1. Loeb drove well for the next two days, however, securing a handful of stage wins and climbing back to fourth place overall. Loeb’s teammate Francois Duval was not as fortunate, and Duval retired on Leg 2.
Mitsubishi also continued their good form in Mexico, with Harri Rovanpera finishing in fifth and Gilles Panizzi in eighth. While neither were in the hunt for more points, they were the only team besides Peugeot to get both cars to the finish ramp, leaving the Japanese marquee tied with Ford for second place in the manufacturer’s championship. This was the first rally for the team to test new active differentials on the Lancers, and both Rovanpera and Panizzi said more work would have to be done, leaving the team quite optimistic for their chances on the run of five gravel events following Mexico.
Ford’s Toni Gardemeister could only manage sixth place on his first Mexican event, and though the Finn lost the overall championship lead to Solberg, he is still in the thick of the battle. Ford privateer Antony Warmbold took seventh, furthering his cause of getting a full factory drive in the very near future. Warmbold has been a consistent top 12 finisher over the past two seasons, so expect his services to be in demand by the major marquees after the season.
Other notes from the rally:
Subaru’s newest recruit, Chris Atkinson nearly stormed into the points in his second WRC event, holding as high as fifth place on Leg 1, but damage to the suspension on his Impreza cut short Leg 2, and a drop in oil pressure on Leg 3 finally forced him out of the rally in an attempt to preserve the engine (WRC rules mandate engines must survive two events before overhaul — this is a cost-cutting measure). Subaru management is quite pleased with Atkinson’s progress however, and with the series of gravel events on the schedule, he shoud find himself in the points very soon.
Skoda could do no better than a ninth place for Armin Schwarz. The team introduced the 2005 spec Fabia in Mexico. Jani Passonen did have problems with both his car’s gearbox and a cow, and could do no better than 13th. Both drivers did say, however, that the new Fabia faired well on the rough roads.
The championship travels across the globe in April for Rallye New Zealand.
Posted on 13 March 2005
