Yesterday, as the east coast prepared for another winter onslaught, I took to the SoCal roads in 79 degree sunshine.
Predictably, there were lots of other riders enjoying the uncharacteristic warmth. As we passed one another, small hand signals of recognition and (when helmets visors made possible) smiles were exchanged. After an hour or so in the backcountry, I swung over to the local Harley dealer to just hang out for a while.
Testament to the great weather was the small number of bikes parked out front. On the showroom floor, there were more employees than customers, indicating that most folks were doing as I had done: riding. Nonetheless, it was enjoyable shooting the bull with those employees and rider who were there.
I checked out the 2015 Roadglide and was impressed. Quite a bagger! Maybe, if financial good fortune smiles on us, one of the bikes can be mine in the future. For now, I am thoroughly enjoying the Heritage.
After departing the dealership, the relatively short ride home enabled me to capture longing looks from fellow citizens. The allure of the solo motorcyclist is strong and evident in the appreciative stares at the occasional stop light.
Pulling into the garage, a nice outing concluded, I reminded myself that only living in the greatest country on earth made this small adventure possible.
Knowing folks and fellow riders on the east coast are bracing for another storm, I felt a little guilty. But only a little.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Friday, January 23, 2015
Riding time
While the eastern United States braces for another winter storm, it's forecast to be 79 and sunny here.
It will definitely be a day to be out on a Harley.
Taking advantage of this type of weather is a major reason for living in southern California.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Another reason to reinstate the military draft
As the movie "American Sniper" sets attendance records this weekend, the all-too-predictable liberal condemnation of the story of an American serviceman is spewing forth. Whether it be Hollywood "elites" or the liberal member of the media who admitted not having viewed the film, there is a rush to criticize those who serve in the Armed Forces. This is another reason to reinstate the draft.
There is a wide gulf between those who serve in the Armed Forces and those who don't, created in large part by the so-called all volunteer force. Those who haven't served likely make up the vast and overwhelming majority of those who populate the Hollywood "elite" and mainstream media.
I argue that were some of them veterans, based on a fair and above board draft process (not the manipulated draft of the Vietnam era), the shared experience earned by being a veteran might, just might, stem the flow of uninformed criticism. Or, perhaps hopefully, would lead to the vets offering their counterpoints to the uninformed commentary.
This is another reason to reinstate the military draft, adding to other valuable reasons, such as:
Let's join together to reinstate the draft, for the above and many, many other reasons.
There is a wide gulf between those who serve in the Armed Forces and those who don't, created in large part by the so-called all volunteer force. Those who haven't served likely make up the vast and overwhelming majority of those who populate the Hollywood "elite" and mainstream media.
I argue that were some of them veterans, based on a fair and above board draft process (not the manipulated draft of the Vietnam era), the shared experience earned by being a veteran might, just might, stem the flow of uninformed criticism. Or, perhaps hopefully, would lead to the vets offering their counterpoints to the uninformed commentary.
This is another reason to reinstate the military draft, adding to other valuable reasons, such as:
- Spreading military service responsibility and experience across a broader spectrum of the American citizenship.
- Making lawmakers and elected officials think twice or thrice about sending their own sons and daughters into harm's way.
- Connecting the average family to the responsibility inherent to being a citizen, by requiring service to the nation.
Let's join together to reinstate the draft, for the above and many, many other reasons.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Neo-appeasement - a new national pastime
Over the first cup of coffee, while reading a variety of news sources and opinion pieces, I was struck by what appears to be the developing theme across the country - neo-appeasement.
Simply put, this developing theme of neo-appeasement occurs when someone complains about something they don't like and someone else subsequently changes their behavior, belief, action, stance, vote, or whatever.
In this great country of ours, one generous view of the phenomena is that it embodies the essence of free speech. Another, less generous view is that the phenomena illustrates an unreasonable, oft times unwarranted impact on the rights of others, aided by the relatively new explosion of social media.
I'm left wondering.
Now on the second cup of coffee, I accept wholeheartedly the essence and imperative of free speech. But I also wholeheartedly accept the essence and imperative of the rights of the individual. Combining these two rights, I am free to think and believe as I may and express those thoughts and beliefs. I am equally free to hold my thoughts and beliefs to myself, by not expressing them. Just as I am equally free to disagree with the thoughts and beliefs of others. I am also free from being required to accept, embrace, and live by the thoughts and beliefs of others.
Continuing, I am free in our great nation, unlike in many other countries, to publicly protest, based on my thoughts and beliefs. My protests may upset or anger others, just as theirs may upset or anger me. Such is a cost for maintaining these rights.
In the face of protests or expressed opposition, I am free to maintain my thoughts and beliefs, or change them. But I am not mandated to change. I can not be compelled to either change my thoughts and beliefs, or to accept those of others. And that is where I am seeing this new phenomena.
In times before social media, expressing one's thoughts and beliefs was limited by the audience one could reach. Perhaps the news media would engage, supposedly as a disinterested third party and publicize or broadcast the thoughts or beliefs. Implicitly, then, some fact checking or the like would occur. Not always, not uniformly, but sometimes, in some small way adhering to the responsibility for accuracy. Further, the media sources were somewhat limited in their reach, by both mechanical and financial means. Today, however, social media is hampered by neither a responsibility for accuracy nor limited reach.
Consequently, complaints launched into the social media swirl are passed along to a potentially limitless audience. And at a speed previously unseen.
In days past, the individual or small group complaining about something probably didn't have much of an influence. And in a nation of our size, it is reasonable to accept that differing views abound, meaning equally limitless complainers. We saw that only the compelling complaints and matters gained traction and thus broader distribution.
Thus, we find ourselves today with the unique ability of complainers to launch their complaints to countless individuals at virtually the speed of light. With a broad, unlimited audience, it is possible to build a message unfettered by fact in very short order. Those against whom the message is targeted can be inundated across the electronic spectrum, as this form of free speech grows exponentially.
Up to this point, I see absolutely no problem. If ignorance is launched into the social media swirl and people accept it, so be it. If misinformation is shared time and time again, that is one of the costs of free speech.
But when individuals, companies, or institutions yield to social media driven ignorance, misinformation, or merely opposing views, simply because there is an opposing view, this neo-appeasement is disturbing. When free speech convinces someone to change their position, based on reasoned debate, we all win. But when simply a firestorm social media, measured by numeric posts, tweets, or the like, rather than fact causes change, we all lose.
Individuals, companies, and institutions yielding in a manner of neo-appeasement only serve to embolden unreasonable complaints. Yet, I do not criticize the unreasonable complaints, because it is, again, a cost of free speech.
I criticize those who so timidly hold their thoughts and beliefs, that they can be swayed and changed so easily. Ironically, when those with stiffer backbones stand by their positions and beliefs, we also see litigation ensue
Neo-appeasement is then bad for the nation.
Simply put, this developing theme of neo-appeasement occurs when someone complains about something they don't like and someone else subsequently changes their behavior, belief, action, stance, vote, or whatever.
In this great country of ours, one generous view of the phenomena is that it embodies the essence of free speech. Another, less generous view is that the phenomena illustrates an unreasonable, oft times unwarranted impact on the rights of others, aided by the relatively new explosion of social media.
I'm left wondering.
Now on the second cup of coffee, I accept wholeheartedly the essence and imperative of free speech. But I also wholeheartedly accept the essence and imperative of the rights of the individual. Combining these two rights, I am free to think and believe as I may and express those thoughts and beliefs. I am equally free to hold my thoughts and beliefs to myself, by not expressing them. Just as I am equally free to disagree with the thoughts and beliefs of others. I am also free from being required to accept, embrace, and live by the thoughts and beliefs of others.
Continuing, I am free in our great nation, unlike in many other countries, to publicly protest, based on my thoughts and beliefs. My protests may upset or anger others, just as theirs may upset or anger me. Such is a cost for maintaining these rights.
In the face of protests or expressed opposition, I am free to maintain my thoughts and beliefs, or change them. But I am not mandated to change. I can not be compelled to either change my thoughts and beliefs, or to accept those of others. And that is where I am seeing this new phenomena.
In times before social media, expressing one's thoughts and beliefs was limited by the audience one could reach. Perhaps the news media would engage, supposedly as a disinterested third party and publicize or broadcast the thoughts or beliefs. Implicitly, then, some fact checking or the like would occur. Not always, not uniformly, but sometimes, in some small way adhering to the responsibility for accuracy. Further, the media sources were somewhat limited in their reach, by both mechanical and financial means. Today, however, social media is hampered by neither a responsibility for accuracy nor limited reach.
Consequently, complaints launched into the social media swirl are passed along to a potentially limitless audience. And at a speed previously unseen.
In days past, the individual or small group complaining about something probably didn't have much of an influence. And in a nation of our size, it is reasonable to accept that differing views abound, meaning equally limitless complainers. We saw that only the compelling complaints and matters gained traction and thus broader distribution.
Thus, we find ourselves today with the unique ability of complainers to launch their complaints to countless individuals at virtually the speed of light. With a broad, unlimited audience, it is possible to build a message unfettered by fact in very short order. Those against whom the message is targeted can be inundated across the electronic spectrum, as this form of free speech grows exponentially.
Up to this point, I see absolutely no problem. If ignorance is launched into the social media swirl and people accept it, so be it. If misinformation is shared time and time again, that is one of the costs of free speech.
But when individuals, companies, or institutions yield to social media driven ignorance, misinformation, or merely opposing views, simply because there is an opposing view, this neo-appeasement is disturbing. When free speech convinces someone to change their position, based on reasoned debate, we all win. But when simply a firestorm social media, measured by numeric posts, tweets, or the like, rather than fact causes change, we all lose.
Individuals, companies, and institutions yielding in a manner of neo-appeasement only serve to embolden unreasonable complaints. Yet, I do not criticize the unreasonable complaints, because it is, again, a cost of free speech.
I criticize those who so timidly hold their thoughts and beliefs, that they can be swayed and changed so easily. Ironically, when those with stiffer backbones stand by their positions and beliefs, we also see litigation ensue
Neo-appeasement is then bad for the nation.
How not to be taken seriously
It is rather amazing to some that our foreign policy, national security policy, and diplomats aren't taken seriously around the globe. Need we really wonder why?
A juvenile and cutesy prop by Secretary of State Clinton (the now infamous"Russian reset" button):
An equally juvenile and unfathomable display by Secretary of State Kerry (bringing an entertainer to sing "You've Got a Friend" and the undiplomatic, uncomfortable hug):
A juvenile and cutesy prop by Secretary of State Clinton (the now infamous"Russian reset" button):
An equally juvenile and unfathomable display by Secretary of State Kerry (bringing an entertainer to sing "You've Got a Friend" and the undiplomatic, uncomfortable hug):
Neither symbolic nor appropriate, both displays embarrass the nation and convey clearly that this administration is clueless when it comes to foreign policy. When the nation's top diplomat is the perpetrator of the displays, it does not bode well for the serious work all of our diplomats must undertake on a daily basis.
I, for one, am significantly concerned that our foreign policy is being managed by those not equipped to do so.
I remain equally concerned the world no longer takes our foreign policy, national security policy, or diplomats seriously.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Setting the bar too low
Setting aside for the moment the impractical and uninformed aspects of Obama's proposal for "free" community college for all, take a moment to look beyond the obvious.
If Obama were serious, he'd advocate and encourage an undergraduate education as the nation's primary educational policy objective. Though it may not be every student's objective or within every student's capabilities, setting this objective will help provide for better K-12 education. Students completing K-12 education prepared for undergraduate studies will be best prepared for whatever avenue they pursue. (Sadly, there is far too much evidence that far too many high school graduates are not prepared for undergraduate university/college education, with large numbers requiring remedial courses immediately upon starting classes.)
Thus, the President is wrong in his stated objective, because it does not encourage preparing our K-12 students for traditional undergraduate studies.
Setting only a community college education as the nation's educational policy objective is selling the youth of our country short, particularly the minority and low income populations.
Back to the drawing board, Mr. Obama. You, a law school graduate, should know better, much, much better.
If Obama were serious, he'd advocate and encourage an undergraduate education as the nation's primary educational policy objective. Though it may not be every student's objective or within every student's capabilities, setting this objective will help provide for better K-12 education. Students completing K-12 education prepared for undergraduate studies will be best prepared for whatever avenue they pursue. (Sadly, there is far too much evidence that far too many high school graduates are not prepared for undergraduate university/college education, with large numbers requiring remedial courses immediately upon starting classes.)
Thus, the President is wrong in his stated objective, because it does not encourage preparing our K-12 students for traditional undergraduate studies.
Setting only a community college education as the nation's educational policy objective is selling the youth of our country short, particularly the minority and low income populations.
Back to the drawing board, Mr. Obama. You, a law school graduate, should know better, much, much better.
A SoCal motorcycle rider's lament
Sadly, the sun and warmth (70s and 80s) of a few days ago have disappeared under clouds bringing light, but consistent rain and cool temperatures. So the Harley remains in the garage.
OK, I know a large swath of the country is suffering frigid cold, snow, and other wintery weather. Therefore, I shouldn't complain about this occasional lack of conditions suitable for riding. But, in balance, we pay a sunshine tax here in California, expecting good riding weather all year long.
With the highest gasoline taxes in the nation, estimated at near 75 cents per gallon, it costs more to fuel up here than those states suffering the winter blues. Additionally, we have some of the highest personal income, sales, and property taxes, if not the highest. Gripe though we may about these and other taxes, being able to ride almost every day of the year compensates.
I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd guess there are logically more motorcycles per capita in California, particularly southern California, than any other place in the country. Again, it wouldn't be surprising, given the great weather. And with more bikes on the road, I'm guessing our insurance fees are also higher than the rest of the country. (And likely to be even higher after the state issued more than 42,000 driver licenses to illegal immigrants.)
Better weather means more riding opportunities, equaling more bikes.
So why shouldn't we complain when the rare weekend rain prevent us from hitting the roads?
I pay a hell of a lot of money in order to live where it's sunny, so I can get the Harley out of the garage and on to the road.
OK, I know a large swath of the country is suffering frigid cold, snow, and other wintery weather. Therefore, I shouldn't complain about this occasional lack of conditions suitable for riding. But, in balance, we pay a sunshine tax here in California, expecting good riding weather all year long.
With the highest gasoline taxes in the nation, estimated at near 75 cents per gallon, it costs more to fuel up here than those states suffering the winter blues. Additionally, we have some of the highest personal income, sales, and property taxes, if not the highest. Gripe though we may about these and other taxes, being able to ride almost every day of the year compensates.
I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd guess there are logically more motorcycles per capita in California, particularly southern California, than any other place in the country. Again, it wouldn't be surprising, given the great weather. And with more bikes on the road, I'm guessing our insurance fees are also higher than the rest of the country. (And likely to be even higher after the state issued more than 42,000 driver licenses to illegal immigrants.)
Better weather means more riding opportunities, equaling more bikes.
So why shouldn't we complain when the rare weekend rain prevent us from hitting the roads?
I pay a hell of a lot of money in order to live where it's sunny, so I can get the Harley out of the garage and on to the road.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Not the type
With 2015 beginning, my beautiful wife attended a local art gallery's monthly opening. (She's an artist and volunteer at the gallery.) Artists and lovers of art convened, with folks bringing finger foods and drinks, as it the custom. Definitely the cheese and wine crowd.
Listening to her description of the evening, I was thinking, "Bikers are definitely NOT the wine and cheese type of folks."
Listening to her description of the evening, I was thinking, "Bikers are definitely NOT the wine and cheese type of folks."
Nope, we are more the beer and brat crowd.
Ride safe this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)