Cycle Canada Slams Cruisers

I just got my March 2013 Cycle Canada, and the controversy started by Michael Uhlarik in the January 2013 issue is growing.  In January, Michael stated

"Not for them the land yachts of the cruiser ilk.  The influence and relevance of the cruiser, in world terms, is fading - and not a moment too soon."

Apparently, some sharp eyed readers spotted this barbed comment, and now Cycle Canada is getting letters starting off with variations of "You, sir are an idiot."  By the way, Michael has also expressed interest in electric motorcycles, so he will be no stranger to controversy.

This month, the editor, Neil Graham, has waded into the fray:

"Uhlarik's quip that the cruiser style can't die 'a moment too soon' reflects a surprisingly common view within the motorcycle industry.'
"no one who writes about them [cruisers] wants to own one."
"even the companies that make cruisers find no enthusiasm for them.  At cruiser press launches, long after the rhetoric of the PR people has faded, company staffers often lament the necessity of making cruisers at all.  'The bike works OK for a cruiser' they say"
"The cruiser's flaws as a dynamic work of engineering are more pronounced than those on other styles of motorcycles.  That's just a fact."
"Simply put it's hard to go back to a type of motorcycle that doesn't handle, brake, or cover the miles as effortlessly as another type of bike."

First, I applaud Cycle Canada for carrying on the tradition of annoying their readers.  Second, I think this is a worth while controversy, because far too many people choose to buy a cruiser without even considering any other type of motorcycle.  But in the end, I do ride a cruiser (A Kawasaki Vulcan 900), so I feel the urge to defend my choice.

In defence of cruisers, strangely enough, I would start by conceding that Neil and Michael may be right. Other types of bike may have better performance (braking, steering, accelerating, top speed, suspension), and other types of bike may be more comfortable on a test ride.  So objectively, they are better. Furthermore, the non-cruisers are more innovative, and thus more interesting to people who know bikes and the motorcycle business in and out.

But I own a cruiser, and there are reasons for my choice.  Sure, one reason is that there are lots of them for sale - and that's exactly what Neil and Michael are arguing against.  So maybe another point for them.  But now here is the thing.  I don't want to go fast any more, and with my Vulcan I am not really tempted to get any more speeding tickets.  So that's one point in favour of cruisers, and other people are free to have different opinions on that.

At first, cruisers may not be comfortable, but I have found with time that I have adjusted to riding a cruiser with a low seat and the feet placed forward.  The low seat has the advantage that you can pile cushions on top of it.  And the feet forward has the advantage in comfort when you have a backrest.  I don't have a proper accessory backrest, but when I'm travelling long distances without a passenger, I can use my duffel bag.

So far my arguments only really apply to people who typically like to drive slower, and like to rest their aching backs.  And people who don't really care about all the new technology that makes it possible to go even faster, in even greater discomfort.  (i.e. old people)

Now here's another argument.  Cruisers come with back fenders that stop the spray.  Most other bikes seem to be designed to see just how much spray they can direct up the rider's back off a wet road.  I have no idea why they do that, but I don't like it.

Cruisers don't corner fast because they don't have enough ground clearance. But on the up side, cruisers don't need super-sticky tires that cost $400 and wear out every 8,000 kilometers.  Long lasting tires may not appeal to magazine editors, (they don't pay for tires) or the motorcycle industry (they get paid for tires), but as an owner, I like it.  And at lower speeds, it corners and brakes fast enough to stay safe on those tires.

Maybe if the designers and manufacturers concentrated on innovations that made motorcycles more comfortable, and safer, and cheaper, and easier to maintain, I would consider a new style bike.  So far I'm not seeing it.

Picture: I love pictures of cats, if Mary Ann allowed, I would make all my blog pictures cats.  What I am  illustrating here is that bikes must be made to fit the life forms that ride them.

Are You Smarter Than a Fox Newscaster?

I will confess that I don't very much like Howard Stern.  Howard accuses late-night comedian Jay Leno of stealing his ideas, but let's look at the ones mentioned in the Fox News session with host Megyn Kelly.  Megyn puts on two "experts" who hate Jay Leno to discuss the case. But none that like him, that is not fair.  But then I guess that Fox's motto "Fair and Balanced" is beyond a joke, it is mocking the entire concept of fairness.  Not too surprising, the verdict is that Leno is a swine, but that unfortunately Howard does not have a good legal case due to technicalities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ntWGpI61XE

In the above Fox News clip, Jay is accused of taking these ideas from Howard Stern:  The Jaywalking bit, the Chicken predicting NFL games, "Are you smarter than a fifth grader", and the "Earn your plugs" idea.  Furthermore, Jay Leno hired one of Howard Stern's characters "Stuttering John" away from him.

I'm going to just go over the basics here of copyright, one is that you need to actually copyright an idea to protect it, which Howard didn't do.  Second, you have to actually come up with the idea first, which Howard also failed to prove (as far as I know, and this may be linked to point one, failing to get copyright).  Third, the idea must be implemented, or executed in the same way, which I don't think is true either.

I should explain that there is a big difference between Jay Leno's type of humour and Howard Stern's.  Jay Leno generally takes the high road, and when I watch his show I don't get the idea Jay is mocking and humiliating people for laughs (although some might see it like that).  On the other hand, Howard Stern's stock in trade is shame and degradation.  I don't happen to like that type of humour, so I might as well make that clear again.  For one relevant example, take "Stuttering John".  Stuttering John was basically a punching bag hired by Howard Stern.  He was ridiculed, first for stuttering (hence the nickname), but eventually also for the way he farted, burped, and smelled.  Also how he took dumps, and how he urinated. You can catch a sample from Howard Stern's show here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFwrOGTyOfY

Stern's original idea for Stuttering John was to get a stutterer to ask embarrassing questions of celebrities, who would be too polite to snub a stutterer.  Later, Stuttering John was driven off the Stern show by nasty comments from Howard.  To some people, Stuttering John  was funny, and Jay Leno had reportedly planned to use John the same way as Howard Stern did, but in a less abrasive way.  In all the time I watched the Jay Leno show with John Melendez, he was never referred to as "Stuttering John" (by anyone) and I never knew he stuttered until I saw some bits on Howard Stern.  That helps illustrate the difference between Jay Leno's brand of humour and Howard Stern's.

The hiring of John Melendez was the beginning of the feud between Howard Stern and Jay Leno, and honestly I have never heard Jay Leno criticise Howard Stern, but Howard has been lambasting Jay heavily since then.  That again shows the difference between the two,  Howard is well known for hateful comments, Jay rarely says anything bad about anyone.

Now let's look at Jaywalking.  In this bit, Jay walks down the streets of Los Angeles and interviews ordinary Americans, or tourists.  He asks questions about sports, geography, current events.  This does not really sound like something Howard Stern might have invented, and indeed Howard Stern's bit was all about asking homeless people simple questions and betting on the result. The idea of interviewing people on the street is not original, but Jay's idea is not about making fun of the homeless, but about making fun of the mass culture in America, that places such a low value on education.  In one segment, Jay interviews someone who was claiming that he "staged" the dumb answers in "Jaywalking", so to prove her wrong, he simply asked her a few questions, and amazingly enough, her answers seemed to prove Jay's point.

To me there is a huge difference between the tone of Jay's humour, and Howard Stern's.  And honestly, is there any original funny bit that cannot be traced to some earlier idea?  Although I never saw Jay do the chicken bit, animals predicting the future is not all that original.  It's really what you make of it.

Jay does a weekly bit called "Headlines" that I think is funny, he reads newspaper headlines with mistakes or double meanings.  But that bit is only funny because of what Jay does and says while reading them.  Without Jay's personality, the headlines are not funny at all.  (I tried watching the bit once with the sound turned off.  I did not laugh.)

"Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader", as far as I know, was never used by Jay Leno.  It was taken and made famous by Jeff Foxworthy, on the FOX TV network.  So if anybody stole it, it was FOX.  Megyn Kelly, an employee of Fox, accuses Jay of ripping off "Smarter than a Fifth Grader" at 0:50 in the first video. And just when I thought Fox News could go no lower. Who watches Fox News?  I think we all know - it's the people interviewed in "Jaywalking".

In one final clip, here is Megyn Kelly, on the Howard Stern Show, talking about breasts and penises.  Just to show once again the difference again in the target audience, subject matter and type of humour.  I think Megyn, and probably most of the other Fox News People, "get" Howard Stern's humour better than she gets Jay Leno.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IML_UGhXz2Q

Anne of Green Gables Goes Blonde, Press goes Wild

Controversial cover

Tess Benger

Yesterday I was looking up places to visit in PEI, because Mary Ann and I would like to go there by motorcycle one day, and her sister has a cottage on the island.  So I started by looking up Mike Duffy's** address, and I thought we could pop in and say hello.  And since he lives in Cavendish, just a stone's throw from "Green Gables", where Anne of Green Gables lived, I put a pushpin on that location too.

But then, later that night a story broke (actually two stories), one about Mike Duffy not actually living in PEI, and the other about Anne of Green Gables being turned into a trollop.

I believe there may be something to the Mike Duffy Story, but a minimum amount of Googling indicates to me that the Anne of Green Gables story is the usual bu**sh** that comes through in the news all the time without any fact checking.

This is how Anne's story was presented in the press.  A new edition of the book Anne of Green Gables" is coming out, but the girl on the cover looks like a blonde sexpot instead of our impish red-haired, skinny and pigtailed 10-year old Anne.  As one commenter put it "The book is Anne of Green Gables, not Anne Does Green Gables".  And there were thousands of other similar comments.

Megan Follows as Anne

But here is what I found out.  The book is published in "Createspace", a website where all you need is an email ID to create a book.  Usually, these books are made with your own writing, not the writings of others, but these days, who writes their own stuff any more?  (Well, I do, and I'm The Lost Motorcyclist, and if you are reading this in another blog, it means my work has been stolen.  Once again.)  But I digress, let's get back to Anne of Green Gables.  The book Anne of Green Gables has been in the public domain for many years, and so apparently anybody can copy all the words off the internet, then paste them into their "own" book, slap on a cover page using the free graphic tools provided by Createspace.  Then wait for somebody to buy a copy.

So, there is no "Publishing Company" involved in the traditional sense.  More likely one person.  And there is no run of books to be printed, as it is all "print on demand".  There are no up front royalties paid, no advances, no expense accounts.

The only worry is that the image of Anne and Green Gables still belongs to the heirs of the author.

But who is the girl on the new cover?  Was she Googled and copied from some farm girl porn site?  I think she actually looks a lot like the actress playing Anne in the latest production of Anne of Green Gables, Tess Benger.  To me they look about the same.  So really the only heinous crime involved was not putting on Tess Benger's fake red wig with pigtails, and the possibly sexy pose.  Or maybe people should get worked up about choosing Tess Benger for the role in the first place.

Pictures: One is Megan Follows, one of the most well known actresses to play Anne Shirley.  Another is Tess Benger.  And the third is the "new edition" of the book with the controversial cover, that I think might be Tess Benger.

** Mike Duffy: Famous Canadian news commentator turned senator, currently mired in a controversy about whether or not he lives in P.E.I., the province he is supposed to represent.  He is not related to me in any way.

Put on Your Hip Waders, the Gun Debate is Back

As the gun debate heats up again, I remain convinced that it is one of the most illogical debates I have ever heard.  It makes about as much sense as debating witchcraft or runaway Toyotas  (actually those of two of my favourite topics.)

This morning I read the story of a US Navy Seal gunned down on a shooting range.  I am pretty sure that the NRA will not be able to use the old argument that it happened because "there were not enough guns at the range" and/or that "more guns are needed to protect people at the shooting range".  I wait to hear what their response will be.

But the other story is Sarah McKinley, an 18 year old mother living alone with her baby, who shot and killed knife-wielding intruder Justin Martin.  This story is of course the ideal one to support the NRA's position that assault weapons should be allowed, because it would have made Sarah McKinley even safer than just using a 12 gauge shotgun.  Does their position make any logical sense?  Of course it does if

1. You assume Sarah McKinley will do a better job killing the intruder with an assault rifle than with a shotgun.  (hint, he's dead.  He can't get any deader)  I'm sorry, I didn't present the NRA's side fairly.  They actually said, not that she would kill him deader, but that she would have more chances to kill him if she missed, and that she would be braver with a scarier looking gun, and that Justin Martin would more likely have been scared away by a scarier looking gun.  I don't buy that argument either, because it really does not make a lot of sense to me.

2. The biggest, most illogical assumption is one that I do not see mentioned anywhere. It is the assumption that only Sarah McKinley will have access to buy and carry an assault rifle, but Justin Martin will not be able to do so.  Nowhere in the NRA manifesto does it say that only mothers with babies can have scary guns, and not the men breaking in.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  They want everyone to have access to scary guns, and they are not supportive even of background checks.

Now my question is, was it Obama who took away Justin Martin's gun?  Justin apparently carried only a 12 inch hunting knife.  The point of this story is relevant to the issue of gun control.  In fact, I might even call it the central issue of gun control.  The NRA wants to make it possible for the Justin Martins of the world to have more guns, and the proposed NRA solution is to also give scarier guns to defenseless women.  If that is going to make the women safer, then please refer to the Navy Seal story this morning.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ex-navy-seal-sniper-author-killed-at-texas-gun-range-reports-1.1141037

http://alysonmiers.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/mr-stewart-you-are-under-arrest-for-letting-your-friend-be-a-stalker-a-junkie-and-an-idiot/

Picture: Another kitten picture. I am using kitten pictures because they are cute.  I got this off the internet, a great source of kitten pictures, and some other stuff too.

How Do You Like Lane Splitting?

Lane splitting is done by motorcycles when they ride on the dotted line between the lanes to overtake two vehicles that are driving side by side in two separate lanes. Southern Ontario is not a lane splitting place, probably the closest place where you can lane-split is California.  So I don't have a lot of experience with lane splitting, but I do remember being in California about 25 years ago, on a bike, and being in heavy freeway traffic I saw some motorcyclists pass me by lane splitting.  I was going to try the same thing, but as I gradually moved onto the white line, I narrowly missed being hit by another lane splitter who came from behind, at what I thought was a very high speed.  For the rest of my two days in California, I stuck to one lane.

Even in California, lane splitting is not completely accepted.  According to Wikipedia, less than 60% of car drivers in California think that lane splitting is legal.  Apparently, it is not fully protected in the highway code, and it is also not completely illegal.  It is tolerated by the police, but if a motorcyclist has an accident they don't have much legal protection.

Here are some of the problems I see with lane splitting.  Cars and trucks tend to move somewhat erratically from one side of their lane to another, and if the two vehicles on ether side of you randomly move closer to each other while you are trying to get between them, you may get trapped.  So lane splitting is more safely done when the traffic is stopped.  But many motorcyclists do lane splitting at high speeds, even above the speed limit in some cases, and even if the traffic is actually moving along quite well.

I could not begin to list all of the stupid things that some motorcyclists can do while lane splitting, but I know that not all the dumb moves are done by people driving cars.  But apparently there has never been a study done to prove that lane splitting is dangerous, and some studies seem to indicate that motorcyclists tend to get hit from the rear less while lane splitting. (common sense, really)

If I was to actually do some lane splitting, I would want to do it where it was legal, where all the car drivers knew about it, and where the lanes were a bit wider (like California). I would also want a different bike, with narrow handlebars (like 24" instead of my current 36" handlebars), and no saddlebags sticking out.  Hooking a car or truck with your handlebars is a sure way to lose control.

But getting back to Ontario, it seems Ontario has a culture of lining up.  Go to Tim Horton's and see what I mean.  Also, if there is a closed lane ten miles ahead, everybody lines up immediately and frowns at the occasional car that continues to drive in the "closed" lane.  I think of that as just about the complete opposite of lane splitting.  You have an entire legally marked lane there for ten miles until it is closed down by safety cones, but most people don't think you have the right to use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

Lane splitting brings up all kinds of legal grey areas.  For example this next video features a motorist making an illegal lane change - because it is an HOV lane with a solid line where you are not allowed to change lanes until the line turns dotted.  But then is a motorcycle allowed to lane split on a solid line that cars are not allowed to cross?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOgTuYqUFOc


Now from Cyril Huze motorcycle blog, three motorcyclists try to convince us that lane splitting should be allowed everywhere. I don't agree with everything they say, but one point in particular I think is wrong, and illustrates that maybe some of them slept through math class. A Toyota Prius does not get 0 mpg sitting in a traffic jam.   To get 0 mpg, you must be using some gas.  But a Prius has the engine turned off, and so mathematically you have zero divided by zero which is   "Undefined"

http://cyrilhuzeblog.com/2013/01/24/lane-splitting-useful-safe-or-dangerous/

Picture: From this blog Motorcyclephilosophy.  Another thing I would not do while lane splitting is take pictures. But then I have a  handheld camera.

http://www.motorcyclephilosophy.org/2012/09/lane-splitting-on-strait-and-narrow.html

Technology Could Make Canada as Liveable as Arizona

We have just had a really cold few days in Canada. Actually, it was almost like what we used to call "winter". It's time for the "Lost Motorcyclist" (i.e. me) to reflect on how the winter affects us in Canada.

With effective interior heating, Canada has become a much more comfortable country to live in.  At least, I imagine it is, because I have never lived in a house without central heat in the winter - although we did have a coal fired furnace when I was young, it was still "central" heating, with a square heat duct coming up from the basement furnace room to a massive grate in the living room hallway.  But after it belched flames into our home a few times, my mother insisted on replacing with an oil burner.

The next step in fighting cold in the winter after houses, was making heated cars almost universal and clearing and salting all the roads. Back in the early fifties, apparently the province of Quebec did not bother clearing roads between towns.  I say apparently, because we didn't have any provincial roads coming into town anyway.  Or a car. Now, in the winter time most people either stay inside, or sit in their cars, or shop in indoor malls, and you hardly ever feel cold.  Except when shovelling snow - even then some snowblowers have heated cabins.  It is to the point where some people don't even throw on a coat or hat to get in the car and drive to Sarnia, which is why it was so dangerous a few years ago when the 402 was shut down by a blizzard and cars were stuck overnight.

But regardless of all this comfortable heat we surround ourselves with, Canadians still have a tremendous desire to get out of Canada in the winter.  I don't need to say we "go south", because logically, any direction out of Canada is south.  That's because Canada is where the north pole is located.  Yes, I know we go north to get into Detroit, but that's just a geographic anomaly.  But I digress.  Canadians like to go someplace warm in the winter, like Florida, Arizona or Mexico.  Actually any other country on Earth is warmer than Canada, I just don't have time to list them all.

Why do Canadians want to go someplace else in the winter, even though we are so comfortable in our houses, cars, and malls?  Because we miss the outdoors is why.  We like to stand (or more likely, sit) out in the sun, without literally freezing our asses off.  I often go south in the winter because I miss being able to ride my motorcycle here. From November to March, sometimes weeks go by without me getting out for a ride.

Which brings me to the news that technology is being developed which might make Canada's outdoors as warm as Florida in the winter, and I'm not talking about global warming. I'm talking about heated clothing. Just as houses and cars with internal thermostatically controlled heat have made Canada more comfortable in the winter, now your outdoor clothing can have its own heater and thermostat.  The temperature inside a garment (coat, gloves, socks) can be set to regulate itself. And some of the latest heated garments have wireless remote thermostat controls.  They can be located more conveniently than fumbling around inside your pants at 40 below zero.  Also, the controls can, if desired, regulate the heat on separate knobs for vest, gloves, pants, or socks.

http://www.powerlet.com/product/dual-wireless-temperature-controller/471

Heated clothing no longer needs a wire tethered to a motorcycle battery.  More efficient heating elements and rechargeable lithium batteries have made it possible to have heated clothing with portable battery packs. Although to be honest I have not tried this cordless battery operated setup yet.  Check out this jacket at Mark's.

http://www.marks.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/en/marks-marksdefaultsalescatalog/thermalectric-rechargeable-heated-fleece-jacket-21047

It's just one more technological step in making Canada a livable place in the winter, and not just a playgound for polar bears.

Picture: You don't need another picture of me in my electric vest.  Much better is a cat out for a walk in the winter, taken from this website.
http://xaxor.com/funny-pics/29220-funny-cats-playing-in-the-snow-part-3.html

Ezra Levant Mentioned in MacLean's Magazine

The only reason I read MacLean's is to distract me from the pain of a dentist visit.  So I was at the dentist .. again .. and the latest MacLean's was there, with an article about Ezra Levant. The perfect anesthetic before going to the dentist chair.

"Ezra Levant: Love him or hate him, he keeps winning" A profile of the right-wing gadfly who loves to offend by Jonathon Gatehouse on Saturday, January 12

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/12/going-on-the-offensive/


I found one quote in the article particularly relevant, where Ezra Levant blamed the Jews for Canada's human rights laws and here it is:

"The people to blame for the “illiberal and un-Canadian” human rights laws and tribunals he’s been crusading against for the past seven years are well-represented in the theatre. 'It came from us. I mean the Jews, my friends.'"

Well well, apparently Ezra was asleep during History class, which is especially annoying to me, as an ex-History teacher.  So now I have to fill him in on what he missed.  Here goes.

It was just after WW2, when the Allies found concentration camps full of dead and starving Jews.  In the final tally, about 6 million Jews had been killed in what we called the "Holocaust".  The horrified allies tried to analyse what happened to result in this tragic outcome, and concluded at the time that it was years of anti-Jewish propaganda that had built to a fever pitch in the war, and had precipitated this great tragedy, and made it possible for it to happen.  I don't have the time or space to go into every cultural and sociological factor here, but that's what people in Canada, and the other allied countries generally thought back in the fifties.  So, because nobody wanted another world war, many things were done to try and avert the recurrence of such a situation.  Things like the establishment of the UN, the generous financial aid provided to the losers (Germany and Japan specifically), and the prevention of any further campaigns of propaganda against helpless minorities.  And this means not just Jews, but any minorities.  We did not want this to happen ever again, to anyone.  So every country tried to pass some kind of legislation to protect minorities from genocide, including Canada.  That's why we have the Canadian Human Rights Act.

So in a way, Ezra was right. It was because of the Jews that we have the Human Rights Act in Canada.  Ironically, he finds that it is very restrictive in his campaign to demonize Arabs in the way that Hitler demonized the Jews.  Well, sorry for your bad luck Ezra, but anyone who was awake during history class already knows that the Human rights stuff came about because of the Jews who died in the Holocaust, and was also supported after the war by Canadian Jews.

By the way, recent Right wing emails have tried to persuade us that it was not propaganda that enabled the holocaust.  The two main right wing theories regarding the origin of the holocaust are currently

It was gun control.  If the Jews had guns the holocaust would never have happened.  (FYI, France had guns, they surrendered.  Russia had guns, they lost 8 million people fighting the Nazi invasion, Britain had guns, they retreated to their island and got heavily bombed. The Jews in Warsaw had guns, but the Nazis simply leveled their ghetto with artillery and tanks.  I don't think this argument stands up to much scrutiny.)

It was Darwin's Theory of Evolution.  Apparently Hitler decided that Darwin's theory of evolution meant that he had to kill all the Jews before they became a new species or something.  Maybe I misunderstood that argument.  Anyhow it's quite weak, compared to the many hundreds of years of anti-Jewish religious hatred in Europe.  Here is a quote from Martin Luther, the German who started the protestant reformation. (not the black guy who was killed in the Civil Rights movement).

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism#On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[13] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[14] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[15] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[16] afforded no legal protection,[17] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[18] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them".[19]

I don't think Charles Darwin said anything as bad as that.  Actually, some people think Darwin was a Jew.  That mistake has never been made with Luther. Or Hitler.