Bicycling to Bliss

     Spring is near upon us, and that turns every young-old man's fancy to bicycling (well, not exclusively). We used to call it "biking" in the old days but motorcyclists stole that from us, and you don't take back what "bikers" have stolen -- at least not without doing yourself almost as much harm as getting clipped by an eighteen-wheeler at 60 miles an hour.

     Popular discourse on "cycling" (hey, we still own that word, don't we?) usually centers on one of two things:  1) those who have recently returned to cycling and are now annoying prophets of the past-time, prepared to proselytize as readily as Jehovah's Witnesses (you know, maybe the latter would be more successful if they rode bicycles); and, 2) those who have recently returned to cycling, and discovered that bicycles are legitimate road vehicles, and now want all legal (to say nothing of moral) authorities to take their side in a religious crusade against the automobile. My wife and I once lived in Maastricht, Netherlands, and within a week, we were ready to start a movement on behalf of pedestrians against those swift and silent bicycles that zoomed across our cross-walks. This latter group of complainers on behalf of cyclist rights is not content (nor am I) with bicycle paths or routes (motorists seem to view signs marking bicycle routes with amusement, as if they read:  "you should take this route, there are fewer cars to get in your way." Bad drivers; drivers on cell phones, whose 

peripheral vision narrows to blot out any view of cyclists; drivers with malicious intent; drivers who don't stop when you have the right of way; drivers who do stop and dumbly treat you like you are a pedestrian, even when you are occupying a driving lane -- these are the bane of all cyclists existence. Feel suicidal? Have a death wish? Don't have a thrill park nearby? Take up cycling.

     The  bicycle itself is the Rodney Dangerfield of vehicular traffic.  How can anyone take

seriously a slight machine that is all skeleton with only a few tendons and ligaments attached. Many apparently see bicycles as a fossile remnant of an antique age. Weren't they just a brief, awkward, unsuccessful evolutionary step between the horse and the automobile? Speaking of evolution (or rather its critics), think of William Paley's argument about coming upon a watch, and examining it. One could only conclude, he declared, using the watch as an allegory for the workings of nature, that a purposeful designer was behind its construction. Now, if you are fond of Paley's argument (I am not, nor have been most philosophers), substitute bicycle for watch. What have you got then? A creator with a sense of humor? A creator that doesn't quite have it all together? A creator that isn't infallible?

     The outward appearance of the bicycle itself is only half of the equation. If you watch the "Tour de France," as I do (despite my suspicion that the top ten riders on any given day are using the newest version of designer drugs), you might find some beauty or elegance to the whole thing. After all, these riders are fit athletes with about 0.0% body fat. One would think

this would allow them to wear skin-tight outfits and maintain the sex appeal of Circe de Soleil performers. But it does not. Something about hunching over handlebars on a pretend seat drains away any latent sexiness. Well, sitting on a bicycle does have a profound negative effect on male prowess (but, hey, so do those steroids). I know of few women or gays who find the Tour de France particularly titilating, no matter how fit the body or meager the outfit. In other words, even professional cyclists look a little bit alien on these machines. When creatures from outer space do appear, I have no doubt they will look a lot like Lance Armstrong on a bicycle (you heard it here first!). What is even worse, most of us ordinary cyclists don't have the bodies to look good even standing on a street corner, let alone after swinging our posteriors up on a saddle that seems to promise some clever torture to follow (which it often does). In short, (and by now you are saying, please cut this short), bicyclists are comic figures riding high ona machine that appears too scant and frail to support the adult human body.

     But what a ride! Bicycles are made for the rider, not the observer -- open air, speed, the wind and elements right in your face, gliding along with minimal effort (except up hill; this contrast to gliding largely proves the existence of the devil and evil). Looking out from atop a bicycle (if you can forget how others see you who are not on a bicycle) is a grand way to encounter the world (well, except for encounters with cars, of course, which may explain the popularity of trail biking). Those of you of a certain age will remember Schwinn and other bicycles that figuratively weighed nearly as much as your father's Buick, and which literally did weigh as much as a modern Honda Civic. But the modern bicycle has almost no relationship to the old Schwinn. In fact, the bicycle has evolved more technologically that it has in appearance. In some ways, those who produce modern bicycles (Specialized, Giant, Kona, and several even more elegant brands) are more advanced in engineering than car manufacturers (although, given the state of the auto industry, this may not be claiming too much for them). They are light. An ordinary $500 bicycle today may weigh less than an expensive hand crafted bicycle twenty years ago. They have improved brakes and cranks and pedals and shifters, etc., thanks to Shimano and other companies that can now make quality parts at ordinary prices. And, they roll out on silky smooth bearings and improved wheels and tires. Altogether, riding a good bicycle (not even the top of the line bicycle) is like taking a quality sports car for a drive.

     Wait for a nice spring day, and take one for a test ride.

Splitting the Difference: The Sin of the Media, The Danger of "Pragmatism"

     It seems like a very long time ago, although probably it has has been only twenty years since it began, and maybe fifteen years since it became a dangerous virus in journalism and television. I am referring to the now standard practice of so-called "balanced" reporting in the political press and among television interviewers. Contemporary editors, journalists and media opinion seekers simply choose one or more "experts" on the subject at hand from the so-called "Left" and "balance" this off with one or more appropriate "experts" from the "Right." The deployment of this too formulaic method of "splitting the difference" rests upon an enormous act of faith -- that truth or some possible means of resolution of a political problem will emerge from this exercise.

     We all know that this premise is weak and that good solutions are not the consequence of such poor logic. At best, we readers and listeners may, quite inadvertently, get to know what the "Center" thinks, because those in the press who came of age from the 1980s onward falsely believe that the centrists they have chosen for "balance" really represent "Left" ideas. They do not. They are only labelled "liberal" or from the "Left" by the "Right," which since the 1980s has managed the diction and discourse of politics. So, the playing field has been shifted quite far to the right even before "balance" is imposed. Representatives of the "Right" have been identified quite easily by this generation of the press and media because the Republican Party has been unapologetically to the right since the 1980s, and their spokespersons are plentiful throughout America. The "Right" has also managed to fund a number of think-tanks from whom "experts" are not only willing to be interviewed, but whose entire raison d'etre is to be interviewed.

     It is worth a brief few words in contrasting Canada and the United States in regard to this evolution. There are right-wing enthusiasts in Canada, as Barbara Amiel's long tenure at Maclean's magazine attests. But rightist politics as expressed by Amiel, and leftist politics, often expressed in the past by NDP or BLOC representatives and others as well, are always transparently right or left. They are sincere in their positions but they are less likely than their American counterparts to man the barricades and show no quarter to their opposition. They are ideologues "light," and those who are cast themselves in a more American ideological mold are either compelled either to keep quiet or to accept being marginalized. Even right-wing think-tanks in Canada are more modest in their mission statements and declarations of purpose than in the U. S.  The C. D. Howe Institute rather blandly submits that it "aims to improve Canadians' standard of living by fostering sound economic and social policy." The Fraser Institute claims its "vision is a free and prosperous world where individual's benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility." These are not quite motherhood statements but they come close.

     Contrast these statements of purpose with those of the three leading (and gargantuan) think-tanks in the U. S. The right-wing American Enterprise Institute claims its purpose is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism -- limited government, private enterprise, individual [and] liberty and responsibility" as its prime goals. Note that the purpose is first nationalistic, then supportive of democracy insofar as it is capitalistic, and that private enterprise is to take full precedence over government. The Heritage Foundation is virtually a replica in purpose:  "To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Like so many rightist organizations, they appropriate the word "conservative" when all they care to "conserve" are 19th century Christian values and patriarchy. The Cato Institute, while mirroring the other two institutes cited above, recognizes this latter issue and denies that it is "conservative" in its long statement of philosophy. "'Conservative' smacks of an unwillingness to change," they protest, and, "Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism -- the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever know -- as conservative." Taking up, but not fully embracing the label "libertarian" (which describes a condition as far "right" or "left" on the political spectrum as one can get), they seem to settle for "market liberalism," because "Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society," and "they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world." They close with a further shot at anything that is not to the "right":  "Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress."

       These think-tanks provide the main fodder of argumentation for the "Right" in the press and media (even when not interviewed directly). I don't know about you, but I have seldom seen "communists" or "socialists," or "democrats" who favor the poor and working and middle classes, interviewed alongside Cato, Enterprise, or Heritage spokespersons. We all know, and some of us even joke about, the Fox Network and its news and political punditry shows. And, until recently at least, Glenn Beck's face frequently filled our television screens, to say nothing about the ubiquitous Lou Dobbs. Rush Limbaugh needs no introduction -- nor should he get one. Their main counterparts, significantly, are court-jesters -- Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert -- who can make us laugh as they snipe and allude and ridicule, but who can always retreat behind the curtain of entertainment, never compelled to take a clear position on principles or policies.

     But what of the news programs, you might add, and the "liberal" press? Well, yes, there are those columnists at places like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The New York Times (Cynthia Tucker, editor of the first, and Frank Rich, political columnist of the latter), but how many of you read, or even know their names.  Most newspapers claim "balance," which means some obvious display of rightist principles and ideas, and some coy inclusion of meek ideas from the political center. Television news programs, other than the shouting matches staged by folks like John McLaughlin, seldom have regular reporters or pundits who are even moderately to the left.

     All of this was driven home to me after I read an old study (4 October, 2006 published by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) (see their blog). They addressed the issue of "balance" on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Our family has pretty well watched this show ever since it was begun by Lehrer and Robin MacNeil. Like others, we were troubled when, in 2005, Kenneth Tomlinson launched a campaign to move both PBS and NPR to the "right" in its political commentary. Bill Moyers show -- NOW -- was dramatically ended (though now reborn as Bill Moyers Journal), and it seemed to us that the Newshour interviewers suddenly began to pitch under-handed softballs to a long line of hard-hitting "rightist" commentators.  It came as a surprise to me, therefore, to learn that Tomlinson had long been happy with the Newhour's balance. FAIR tells why. A 1990 study by FAIR revealed both the elitist and the rightist bias in the Newshour over the past long decade. The Newshour to make a long story short, had moved itself to the right even before heavy pressure from a Republican Congress and a G. W. Bush presidency.

     We all know the reasons for the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of rightist media and journalism:  the corporate consolidation of the media; the death of independent newspapers; the marketing of news through the hiring of pretty men and women as replacements for real journalists; and the ubiquitous economic bottom line which never seems to be served by anything but the so-called "good news" of so-called "conservatism." Yet, what we have all clung to through this revolution is the fictitious idea of "balance." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. fathered this modern idea in his dissent in Abrams v. U. S. (1919) when he adopted the laissez-faire economic theory of the 19th century (now famously reborn by the right, with all of its fallacies intact) to argue for a "free trade in ideas." Liberals and the "Left" bought into this idea too readily. The problem is that such "free trade" is not governed by the quality of the ideas; it is not a "free trade in good ideas" but a free trade in whatever ideas have power and resources and a voice. Those latter ideas are not always well derived and not often good. It seems to me that many of the so-called liberal ideas that broadcasters like Walter Cronkhite and others suggested, came from experience, reflection, rationality, and examination. Some of these folks still remain in the press and on television, but precious few.

     Now that many of the consequences of unregulated capitalism (read "greed") have once again been revealed, we might think that real balance can be restored. This seems to be a belief of Barack Obama and his administration as well. But balance will always be much more difficult than first assumed, and organizations like FAIR and other journalism watchdogs are essential in trying to restore responsibility and reason to the press and media. If not, we will continue to see disgraced and wildly radicalized rightists like many Republicans in Congress given equal (or more) time to make their feeble and patently wrong cases. If not, President Obama may, through his desire for consultation and cooperation, continue to strike a middle that is impossible to attain or false from the start. Let's just try to identify good ideas, and nothing else.