Things We Shouldn't Have Done

Two things we shouldn't have done in the twentieth century. Out of what could have been the worst hundred years of human existence, picking just two might have been hard, but it happens there are two standouts. Eugenics and atomic power.

Either one, in theory could have been a force for good, in the hands of intelligent governments.

The aim of eugenics, was to eliminate the unfit and improve the human race through selective breeding. But instead it brought on a mania for slaughtering anyone who was a bit "different".

The development of atomic power could have solved our energy needs, but instead it brought a world wide proliferation of atomic bombs, reactor meltdowns, and nuclear waste that will last 40,000 years. More, if we set the rest of those bombs off.

The Germans used eugenics as one of the excuses to eliminate Jews (and others). After they lost the war, eugenics fell into such disrepute that today we have some protection for the rights of the unborn, and taboos on the building of gas chambers for "non perfect" people. I just wish we could completely get rid of the fundamental racist ideas that drove the WW2 genocide.

Because the American side won the war, there does not seem to be the same aversion to building atomic bombs. Quite the contrary, atomic bombs seem to boost national pride.

There was an interesting, if not poetic, connection between eugenics and atomic power. Jews driven from Germany by threats of eugenics, were the ones who first unlocked the power of the atom for America instead of Germany.

My own conclusion is that humankind is not really ready to handle atomic power or eugenics. So we should try to stay away from them. It's not so much a matter of intelligence, because any one single human being, of normal intelligence, and without external pressure, could probably figure out how to use these things positively. But in large civilizations, we have politics, religion, greed, fear and hate clouding our collective judgment.

I like to think of it this way. It would be a bad idea to give a bunch of baboons machine guns and hand grenades, simply because they would not use them wisely. Lack of intelligence, you might say. Individually humans are pretty smart, but organized in large groups they sometimes make worse decisions than baboons. Sorry people, if you find that insulting. It's about the only logical conclusion I can come to. And in the case of any fundamentalists who do not believe in evolution, no offense was intended. I did not advance this argument to support the theory of evolution. (which happens to be at the root of eugenics)

OK people, what have we got for the twenty-first century?

Picture: Nazi eugenics propaganda, strangely similar to "Muslims will take over the world" propaganda being spread about today by Mark Steyn and MacLean's magazine. Except it was about Jews instead of Muslims. I found it in this blog.

Bike Carries Boat That Carries Bike?

One of the fun parts of motorcycling for me is to sometimes get off the beaten track, to go where cars can't go. There have been times I have done that, but in reality they are few and far between.

The route I take most often that a car could not go is not in the wilds of the Amazon rain forest, it is the route into my garage. To get into the garage, I must drive my motorcycle between the house and the car on a driveway so narrow that I often rub the saddlebags if the car has not been left in exactly the right spot. This situation comes up so often, for obvious reasons that I almost put it out of my mind. But when I think about buying a sidecar, I realize that I would also need to move to a new house.

A motorcycle can obviously park in a space much smaller than a car. But car drivers are an easily annoyed lot, and if you try to make use of a space that a car cannot fit into, they will find a way to make it illegal and ticket you. So very often, I must use up a full size parking space for just my motorcycle, when I would be inclined to be considerate, use a small spot, and let a car driver park in the regular spot. Strangely, car drivers never seem to get upset about a motorcycle taking a car spot, so I just go with the psychology, whether it makes sense or not.

Motorcycles have an advantage in taking taking ferries, in that the the crew can (and will) usually stick a motorcycle in a spot too irregular for a car. So it's normal for ferries to allow motorcycles to the front of the queue waiting to board. But I notice this practice is not universal any more, and I think that there have been arguments in the past with motorcyclists that did not understand that a motorcycle/sidecar pulling a camping trailer takes more space on the ferry than a Toyota Matrix. So it's easier in some cases for the ferry company to make everybody line up, no one goes to the front unless on a bicycle or on foot. If it was me, I would simply make a rule about overall size and never mind anything else, but it isn't me.

Now what about going off road? Most of the time, around southern Ontario, off road driving is illegal. When I lived in Northern Quebec the forest was generally impassible - the terrain was too rugged (cliffs etc) and the forest was impenetrable. Even on foot the best way to walk through an uncut forest would be to walk on the criss-crossed fallen trees. The undergrowth is usually a solid interlocking wall of branches. Apparently you can go off road in certain desert areas of the southwestern USA, but that's a long way from here.

There are also logging (or service roads) roads. If they are maintained, then you have two problems: deep gravel and the logging trucks. If they are not maintained, you may travel some distance and then find a certain part of the road impassable. In either case, you also have to consider whether you would be even allowed on the road.

When I was in Africa, there was one place I went that I had to cross a fair sized creek about 15 meters across by 20 cm. deep, with big round rocks on the bottom. I never did fall over, and it was great having a fairly light Honda CD175, so even if it did go down I could pick it up and drag it to shore (I so I imagined) If the river was too big, having a small bike allowed it to fit easily on a dugout canoe or small raft, another place a car couldn't go.

Over the years I have given some thought to many problems of where a motorcycle can go and can't go. Every time I did a lot of work customising the bike to go somewhere, some dealbreaker always came up at the very end of the process, often stranding me where I didn't want to be.

Recently I have taken to working out these problems on paper, as that is cheaper and less hazardous to my health.

Here is a logic problem. How to have a motorcycle that can carry a boat (on a public road), with the boat being able to also carry the motorcycle. If I solved the problem, I would put it in the Guinness book of records, except that the Guinness book of records has recently deleted all records that are of a stupid and ultimately suicidal nature.

In the picture, I show my Honda CD175 and my small inflatable outboard. I know theoretically the Honda fits in the boat (diagonally), and the boat is rated to carry the weight of the bike plus rider. I know that the Honda can carry the weight of the boat plus the 35 pound outboard motor, although it would make a heck of a big pile of stuff on the back seat. But I also know that there are a million pitfalls to this plan. I have a feeling that if I was younger (i.e. a lot crazier) I might actually try it.

Driving the Mountain Roads

I first learned to drive a car on twisting mountain roads. That's the type of road that people of southern Ontario call "scenic". When I was young, I always thought of them as "normal". My father had a habit of cutting corners, which means in a sharp left hand curve, he would swing over the double yellow line to clip the apex on the shoulder of the oncoming lane - if no cars were coming. This was always accompanied by my mother yelling. Once we were doing such a move in relative safety, as we did have a good view of the road ahead. But this time we had an impatient driver behind us, which to be honest was extremely rare with my father driving. And this time I think he was also trying to block this person from attempting to pass us on the curve by cutting the corner all the way to the left hand shoulder, when suddenly the other car blasted by on the right. Well that's the type of creative driving you will sometimes find in the province of Quebec. These days, they have straightened out many curves (including that one, sadly) and they also have provided emergency runoffs and brake testing areas on the downhills. If you don't have emergency runoffs these days, you are not really on a true mountain highway.

When I got older (28) I had as much trouble learning to drive in busy southern Ontario, as Ontario drivers have in adapting to mountain roads.

Mary Ann is from Southern Ontario. Her home town of Mount Brydges does not have any mountains. Or bridges for that matter. On one vacation, we were driving our Honda Civic through West Virginia, which is mountainous. Mary Ann was driving and this was an unfamiliar situation to her. I'm not saying she didn't know how to stay on the road, just that she did not have years of experience with all the things that can happen.

Mary Ann decided that we could save gas if she put it in neutral coming down the hills. I had never seen anybody drive like this, but I didn't object too much, as there are lots of things she does that I have never seen before. But when we got to her sisters, I noticed the spokes of the front wheels were black instead of their normal silver. It turned out to be dust from the brakes. Then on the way home, I suggested she forget about the saving gas and just leave it in gear. It didn't help, and before long we could smell brakes burning. Actually a familiar smell in mountain communities on truck routes. We stopped and got out. The brakes had kind of seized, so the car would not roll freely. We cooled them off with water from a mountain stream and that seemed to release them. Mary Ann asked if we should call a tow truck. I thought that I would be able to just drive the car without seizing the brakes again. The main problem was the long downhills with hairpin curves. That was where you theoretically needed brakes. So I put the car in a lower gear and drove down the mountain more slowly, and I took the curves about as fast as I dared, without touching the brakes. We made it back to the next town without the brakes seizing again, and on level ground I started using the brakes without further problems. We ended up driving all the way back to Kitchener on those brakes, but it cost up $450 to replace the pads and some other stuff when we got back home. I am not aware of how much gas we saved, though.

A lot of people do not realize how hot brakes can get coming down the mountain grades. It can boil the brake fluid, which expands and will cause pressure on the pads even without your foot on the brake. This is not good for the brakes of course, but you can stop (I hope) and cool them off with water if you need to. The important thing to remember is to not be dragging the brakes all the way down the mountain. Use a lower gear if necessary. We never had this problem much in Quebec, as they use very few hairpin turns in the mountains. Instead of zig zagging down the hill, they usually make the road straight down with a steeper grade. You just let the car speed up and the wind and engine compression alone acts to slow you down. But if you try to take it slow by using the brakes you may burn them up.

Picture: I assume West Virginia, because that's what I was Googling.

Propaganda: The Forwarded Email

I get quite a lot of forwarded emails (or chain-mails) with a message of one of these types: Anti-moslem, anti-global warming, anti-gun control. There may be a lot more than just these subjects, but these are the ones I get the most. I find it hard to ignore emails that come from friends or relatives, but I would like to know what to do about the ones that I don't agree with, which is about 99% of them.

For a while, I had the crazy thought of replying with a form email something like this:

Dear _____,
Thank you for your recent email informing me that (a) Global warming is a hoax (b) God is real (c) Moslems are taking over the world (d) the government is coming for my guns. I will of course pass it along unverified to everyone in my contact list.
Yours truly etc. etc.

Forwarding emails is a relatively new propaganda technique. It works like this. Someone creates an email that has some arguments to persuade people to (a) believe a certain point of view (b) forward this email to everyone on their mailing list. So the original sender starts emailing to everyone they know, in hopes that it eventually multiplies to millions of copies. If it is successful, the email can replicate itself to almost everyone on the Internet. If not, well, it costs nothing to try again, using more powerful arguments.

The spread of these chain mails is quick, cheap, and almost effortless. Chain mails are designed to spread ideas. Powerful arguments are used to convince the readers that not only should they believe, but they can help the cause by forwarding the email. There is an additional convincing factor, that the email was first (presumably) sent to you by a friend or relative that you trust.

It is impossible to stop these chain mails from spreading once they get in the email pipeline. They continue to circulate even if they are discredited, continually winning over new converts along the way. Some of the tactics I have seen border on genius. For example, I have tried to tell friends and relatives to please check on the truthfulness of these emails on Snopes.com before forwarding them to me. Most do not have the time, of course, but some actually try to. I finally got a brilliant forwarded email which came pre-checked by Snopes. In the email, was the statement "Verified by Snopes" with a hot link to www.snopes.com right there to click on! Of course I clicked on it, and according to snopes this particular email was actually fake. A clever propaganda trick all the same, as apparently most people never click on the link.

In some cases, the forwarded mail is falsely attributed to some public figure we know and trust, such as George Carlin, Al Gore, or Andy Rooney of 60 minutes. There is no way the public figure can put a stop to the email, once launched. It can continue to circulate circulate unchecked for years. I received one email that had been circulating for seven years.

It's a problem for me that my email address gets circulated along with the original forwarded email. That allows other spammers to get hold of my email address. I guess that must be all part of the success of this tactic.

In many cases I have tried to reply to my friends, commenting on the inaccuracies, citing websites such as Snopes, or Wikipedia. Although I sometimes get ignored or rebutted with more new stuff, thankfully some people do become aware of this practice and stop forwarding these misleading emails.

Picture: Me, enjoying the sunshine at Port Stanley. With photoshopped bullhorn person for company.

Propaganda: Is Bias Ever OK?

Is it ever OK to have a bias, to be prejudiced, or favour one side over the other? Or is it best to always be completely even-handed. In any dispute to give each side equal time, to consider the arguments without favouritism.

Well right now I think I am going to admit to some bias in certain areas. For example. If there is an argument about whether or not to exterminate the people of some particular race or religion, I would be biased, and I think it is actually appropriate to be biased against the one calling for genocide. They may have arguments, proofs, logic. I might hear their arguments, but you can be pretty sure I would fact check, and if I do not get confirmation from a source I trust, I will call it bullshit. (more politely of course). Even if their arguments check out, I would not be totally convinced of the argument, and would want to place it in a greater context. In other words, I would be biased.

Another area where I may show some bias is in an argument over polluting vs. cleaning up the environment. Those arguing that environmentalists are crazy better have some really good arguments. And every single one of them better be true, because I'll be checking. The only reason I wouldn't fact check a pro-polluter's argument is if I'm just worn out and in that case I will ignore it. That is an example of prejudice, because I am not usually as aggressive in fact-checking the anti-pollution side. That's why it's called bias.

I may be biased about religion. One of the fundamental religious arguments is that the religion is basically good, and atheism leads to evil. Therefore I should be biased towards God, and be especially critical of the Devil-worship crowd. Well, sorry, but that does not make sense if your religion is pro-war. So I am going to insist on some real scientific proof that the "pro-war" God exists.

In every case, my bias tends to be against the self-serving argument. I am always suspicious of any logical rationalization of greed, self interest, fear, and hate. I am usually biased toward people who are trying to make the world a better place, eliminate pollution, preserve nature, and give justice for all.

So in my opinion, bias and prejudice are OK in some cases. Some people may call me stubborn too. In every argument I have ever seen, it is amazingly easy to pick out the logical fallacies and untruths of the side that is in it for themselves, not for the greater good. And I have usually found the side that cares for others to be fairly honest and free from deceit. Yes, there have been cases where environmentalists and anti-war people have been guilty of exaggeration, of distortion, and even some lying and fraud. By in my experience nowhere near the amount of fraud that I found on the side of fear, hate and greed. Why is that? I have not really figured it out yet, but I'm pretty sure there is a pattern.

In the end, you can still get fooled. For example, Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda said it was the Jews who were persecuting the Nazis, and that the Nazis were merely defending themselves from being wiped out by the international Jewish conspiracy. I'm not sure there is any rule anyone can follow blindly if the propaganda is clever enough to twist things upside down.

Motorcycling: The Wild Ones?

Marlon Brando starred in "The Wild One", a motorcycle movie, in 1953. This was very close to the beginning of a half century of stereotyping motorcyclists as hoodlums and neer-do-wells. Today, As the average age of motorcyclists hits 50, and the average income nears $100,000 a year, that tough guy image is gradually fading. Now, more often than not, a "biker gang" consists of a few middle aged lawyers out for a Sunday ride.

It's sometimes hard to imagine how things could be so different only 50 years ago, so let's just look at the motorcycles, and the people who rode them. Before I start this commentary, I just want to admit up front that I have never owned a bike from the fifties. I started motorcycling with a little Honda in 1969, already quite a bit more user friendly than the big bikes of the fifties. So I am not writing from personal experience, but just doing the best I can to project back 16 from years before I started, up to what we have today.

In 1953, average people did not own six vehicles. They usually had to make a sacrifice to even own one. So if you rode a motorcycle, chances were that you rode it rain or shine, winter or summer. And very likely you didn't have a ton of money, you likely were not married and probably young. Because the war had just ended, it was also extremely likely you had been in the war, and maybe were still having a little difficulty adjusting to civilian life. If you owned one you were almost certainly a man. Women were not very interested in owning motorcycles.

The motorcycles were quite different too. and back then they did not have electric starters. The kick starts could often break your leg if you were not careful. The motorcycles leaked oil, on the parking lot, in your driveway, in your friend's driveway, and your parents' driveway. They needed a lot of work and dedication to maintain. You're thinking "Does that mean I have to take it to the dealer every six months or so for a tune up?". No, that means you oil the chain every week, check the oil level at the same time. Repair flat tires yourself with tire irons and patches, do valve adjustments every month or so, and add water to the battery. Almost weekly, something would go wrong with the electrics, where you have no more headlight or ignition. These bikes did not appeal to most women in the slightest. By most I mean 99.99%.

Now how about your comfort? Have we come to the point where we have almost forgotten how much vibration you can get out of an engine that is neither rubber mounted, nor possessing a counter-rotating balance shaft, where even the pistons move up and down together to amplify the vibration instead of opposite to each other? There was an expression that they could "shake the fillings out of your teeth." That expression was based on fillings actually coming out of riders' teeth. So maybe fillings in those days were not as securely attached as today.

The rear suspension was nonexistent. I mean no spring or shock absorber at all. Solidly mounted. Except for the springs to hold the seat up, you would get a major jolt over every bump in the road, sometimes even if the bump was so small you could hardly see it in the road.

Anyway, that's the way it was on Marlon Brando's 1950 Triumph Thunderbird, which incidentally was not a Harley, and was his own bike. Marlon was probably rich enough to own more than one vehicle though. And rich enough to have somebody take care of the maintenance.

The controls were also not standard in those days. Shift levers could be on the right foot, the left foot or controlled by hand. The throttle may be opened by rolling back the right grip or rolling it forward. The clutch might be the left foot or the left hand. Turn signals were usually done by raising your arm.

You were not required to have a motorcycle licence (a car licence would do). There was no such thing as training programs, you just muddled through by yourself. Nobody ever heard of counter steering. Emergency stops were done by locking the rear wheels and falling down (called "Laying 'er down"). Front wheel brakes were thought of as too dangerous to use in an emergency. You didn't need to buy or wear a helmet, or buy insurance. Or have your headlight on at all times, maybe not even at night if you didn't want to. And drinking and driving was pretty much the norm with motorcycles, not the exception.

So the motorcycles of the day, generally speaking were miles apart from the softly sprung, electrically started, fair weather Sunday ride recreational vehicles of today. Not everyone could have one or would even want one.

No wonder the average motorcycle rider of today is very different from 1953. You don't need to be strong, or crazy to ride one. You don't need to be committed to riding one all year long or even all week long. You may never ride in cold or rain. Never have a flat tire or even an oil puddle in the garage.

It is surprising to me when I hear some people who have never ridden an old bike comment today that such and such bike is a "beginner's bike" or even a "girl's bike". Yes, maybe it is, but what the heck are you riding that qualifies it as "tough guys bike"?

Want to see how much better the motorcyclist image was by 1967? Hells Angels on Wheels

This is not a marketing tie in for me, but: In case you want a jacket like Marlon Brando's. What would a 50's biker think of buying a new leather jacket, where you pay extra to have it pre-beaten up for you to look like you been around the block a few times?
http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/feeling-for-the-wild-ones/

Picture: Shia LaBeouf's Brando-esque look from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. With no eye protection, either (even in the fifties, I think eye protection was normal)

Not all Crazies are on the Right

In case anyone ever wondered why all the nut jobs are the right. It is simply not true. There are the equivalent extremists on the left, and webpages full of pictures to prove it. I believe all these pictures are genuine. Some of the protesters are a liability to the progressive movement. For example the nude guy who has a "Reelect Gore" written across his bare butt is particularly unappealing. (hence picture not shown, but link is provided) I assume no Republican would do that, no matter how crazed and zombielike they might be.

It would be great if the liberals would do their part to contain this craziness. But I'm not going to go all the way to San Francisco to drag them down out of the trees, because (1) I don't have a passport, and (B) I'm afraid of heights. It's hard to eliminate all the nutcases and fruitcakes, but we should at least try to contain them so they do as little harm as possible.

There are ways to stop the extremists from gaining too much influence, such as preventing them from

• gaining control of TV stations, newspapers, radio stations
• getting control of the Democratic or Liberal/NDP/Green (in Canada) parties
• carrying loaded weapons
• gaining control of a recognized church
• gaining corporate sponsorship

We should not attend their nudist protests, not give them money, and if we take their leaflets (out of politeness), we should not read them, in case we too become brainless zombies and lib-bots.

I don't want to stifle freedom entirely, so I say let them stay up in the tree if they want to, and ride around naked on bicycles, and inflate their scrotums to enormous sizes (as in picture 6).

Picture from anarchist bookfair March 18, 2008 http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/