Floyd Landis

I spent last Saturday at the Tour of California Time Trails, in downtown Los Angeles. Knowing that it would be foolish to try and drive, and park, for the day, I took the subway from North Hollywood to the 7th Street Metro Station and walked to the start line, and despite arriving an hour early, not finding a good spot to see the action. And so, I worked my along the route. As the racers began to ride by, I stopped and watched, and then continued along until I was at the one hill on the course, in downtown. With the riders making two circuits, out and back, I could stand there and watch them climb up, and then speed down. I had hoped that Levi Leipheimer or Dave Zabriskie could make up the needed seconds to move into the lead, but Australian Michael Rogers kept the gold jersey, and would end up winning the Tour. Among those attending the time trails was Floyd Landis.
-
At the risk of inviting a lot of ridicule, I find Landis' earlier claims of innocence far more credible than his recent confession that he doped during the Tour de France. In the first version of The New Common Sense (For an explanation, see my first post.) I wrote that, while I eventually came to believe Floyd Landis, the issue of his guilt or innocence was of secondary interest to me. What I really found fascinating was how a rider could loose his championship, his team, his income, and his reputation via such a flawed testing system. I'm not writing this to re-argue the case. Anyone with the time and patience can look up all of the evidence supporting Landis' claim that he was unfairly convicted. Just the fact that the testing equipment was running the wrong software, and that the manufacturer was willing to admit that, because of that basic mistake, all tests results were unusable, would have been enough to have Landis' case tossed, if it were held before an American court of law.
-
As I've read the stories, of how Floyd tried to blackmail Lance Armstrong, threatening to name him as a doper if he wasn't offered a position with Radio Shack, I've now come to believe that Landis is going mad. Yes, I know, a reach from a cycling fan who has never really believed in psychology, but I have to wonder about a man who has lost everything, both professionally and personally, who has done his time, and is still being pushed aside by the sport. Is Floyd Landis telling the truth about Armstrong, Hincapie, Leipheimer, Zabriskie and the others he has named, or is he trying to destroy American cycling, the way American cycling has destroyed him? Basso, Millar, even Ricardo Rico have been able to get on with their post doping careers, while Floyd Landis is shunned, while the teams who are willing to sign him, all seem to suddenly find themselves relegated to the back of the peloton. Is there anyone out there who thinks that the Bahati Foundation Team was less worthy of a spot at the Tour of California than Jelly Belly and Kelly Benefit Systems? I wonder.
-
No, I'm not defending Landis' behavior, nor am I defending the use of PEDs in sports. I am however, pointing out that it's very easy for old men with no other job qualifications than an exaggerated sense of self importance, to both exploit athletes, and then throw them aside when it suits them. Floyd may or may not have won the Tour de France with the help of a testosterone patch, but if he did, I would suggest that the team owners and event sponsors have as much interest in seeing athletes put in impossible performances as any athlete does. It's time for the Olympics, WADA, and all of the rest, to step aside for a new structure in professional cycling. Cycling needs a separate organization, not dissimilar to NASCAR to set up the events. It needs an ownership group empowered to negotiate contracts and reasonable doping controls, with reasonable penalties. But most of all, cycling needs a true riders union to look out for the best interests of the riders themselves. A union with the power to call a strike and cancel the grand tours, if necessary.

Meg Whitman, Porn

Every so often, I'll post something that is incredibly obvious that no one else seems to have picked up on. On 9/22/09 I pointed out that Republican California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, while CEO of eBay, allowed the sale of pornography on the site. This made eBay one of the largest, if not the largest, distributors of pornography in the world. It seemed interesting to me that this was being ignored by Republican leadership, considering that the Repugs have positioned themselves as the party of public morality.
-
No more. Her primary rival, Steve Poizner, has begun running campaign ads pointing out Whitman's status as one of the world's largest porn distributors. No, I'm not so egotistical to write that the Poizner people got the idea from The New Common Sense, but I will mention that it took them a hell of a long time to make the link.

Yes, but...

I'll try and write more about the oil spill later, but while I'm thinking about this, I wanted to make a very quick point. The United States can't keep expecting other countries to solve our problems. Whether it's a no drilling policy in ANWR, or a possible ban on off shore drilling, (Unlikely) we can't look the other way while the environments of other countries are destroyed so that we can have more oil.

The Goddess, Silent Movie DVD of the Week...

...Or whenever the hell I get around to it.
-
It's been a long time since I've written about my love affair with silent movies, and I hope it was worth the wait. Shot in a 1934, in a style that 25 years latter would be associated with the Italian neo-realists, The Goddess, written and directed by Wu Yonggang, stars the luminous Ruan Ling-yu as the Goddess, Shanghai slang for a prostitute. A single mother, with no other way to support her son, she sells herself on the streets of Shanghai. One night, seeking to avoid arrest in a police sweep, she blunders into the room of a street thug, in the English inter-titles, referred to as the Boss. It's only a matter of time until she finds herself as little more than property of this gangster.
-
What's most compelling about this film is it's depiction of a woman who, because of her social position, lack of education, and what's seen by Chinese society, as a lack of morals (In one scene, she refers to herself as a degenerate woman.) who has little chance to pull herself out of the downward spiral of her life. It's the love she has for her young son that both ties her to the Boss, who casually threatens to sell the child if she doesn't continue to prostitute herself for his financial benefit, and ultimately, when her son is expelled from his school because of her profession, and the Boss steals the money she had been able to save herself and her son, leads her to murder her oppressor. Like the neo-realists, the Goddess is a stand-in for a suffering lower class, constrained by poverty, exploited by those at the level of the street, as well as societal norms. In the end, the crime she commits liberates her from her pimp, but the prison sentence for that crime, takes her son from her. A son that has been the only fine thing in her life. Sent to prison for 12 years, her son is saved from the orphanage, when the headmaster of the school who had fought, and failed to prevent the child's expulsion, steps in to adopt the boy, and give him the education that he needs if he is to have any chance of a better life than that which his mother had.
-
Ruan Ling-yu, a major star of the Chinese silent cinema, like Mary Pickford in the United States, had enough power to really be the true creative force behind her movies. Essentially, she ran the production company. Whenever I watch this film, I'm reminded of the line from Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard. "We had faces then." Silent acting, often ridiculed by modern audiences, when done well is a study in the beauty an expressiveness of the human face. Ruan Ling-yu can, in the blink of an eye, go from a subtle, ambiguous pain, to anger to joy, when in the presence of her son. A wonderful actress, who committed suicide in 1935, a year after this movie was made. She was 24 at the time of her death. She made 29 silent films in her brief career. One can only wonder what great movies she might have made in sound films.
-
The DVD that I've written about was produced with a grant from Ball State University, in Indiana. I purchased it on eBay. See my blog, www.greatmovieslist.blogspot.com

Prop. 187

Are we about to welcome Arizona into the Democratic fold? In 1994, California Republican State Rep. Dick Mountjoy sponsored prop. 187. With Republican Governor Pete Wilson, (Why is it always Republicans?) as it's main supporter, 187 was approved by the voters of California. What prop. 187 did was to deny most state services to anyone in California, who was not a legal resident of the United States. While the backers of 187 were quick to point out that the children of Canadians illegally in the United States would also be kicked out of public schools, well, let's be honest, 187 was aimed at Mexicans, and central Americans.
-
So what does prop. 187 have to do with politics in Arizona? Well, history does have a habit of repeating itself, and one of the things that 187 did was to energize Hispanic citizens into a potent, Democratic, voting block. It also had a tendency to inspire moderate, Republican Hispanics to change parties. Nothing like a hate campaign from a major political party to inspire revulsion from the electorate.
-
The sad thing is that there is a long history in the United States of employers using immigrants, both legal and illegal, to suppress wages and break unions. What 187 did, and what Arizona's new anti-immigrant law does, is it makes it difficult to discuss immigration in a rational manner. If we could, we would realize that one of the side affects of NAFTA, has been the wholesale destruction of small, family farming in Mexico. One of the reasons for increases in illegal immigration has been income lose suffered by poor, subsistence farmers in Mexico. Remember the Zapatistas, anyone.
-
A trade policy based on equalizing the three NAFTA partners economies would go a long way towards solving immigration problems. Common social safety nets, common environmental laws, common anti-trust regulations, and if possible, common minimum wage scales, would enrich Canadian, Mexican, and American workers.
-
I'm not going to deny that there are racist elements in Arizona's new anti-immigration law, but I do wish that my fellow liberals would remember that American workers do lose jobs, or have their wages reduced by immigration, both legal and illegal. Being aware of that may provoke a racist reaction, but recognition that the building trades, meat packing, and other jobs in the Untied States have been lost to illegal immigrants is, not in itself, racist.

Bring Back Beheading!

The Supreme Court has banned the three drug cocktail as a painful means of execution and therefore unconstitutional. My home state of California, seeking to kill people in a humane way, is moving towards a single drug method of execution. My question for both the Court and those states that still have the death penalty: Why not beheading?
-
If we really think it's important to kill in a humane fashion, it's hard to beat the ax. One very quick chop, an immediate severing of the nerves in the spine, and it's all over in the only method that is close to being painless. The only reason why the United States wouldn't emulate this advanced means of death is squeamishness on the part of prison personnel. I admit that, if I were a prison guard, I would be a bit traumatized, seeing the prisoner's head plopping into a basket, and the fountain of blood squirting across the execution chamber. But what of it? In the name of humanity, shouldn't our representatives be able to stomach a little mess? Yes, beheading is the way to go. If it's really our aim to kill in a sensitive, humane fashion, than the blade is the only method of execution that guarantees a fast and painless end. And if we don't really care about the suffering of the condemned, than let's go back to the garrote! Now that's deterrent.

Bikes=Trucks

Well, not really, but it is notable that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has gone so far as to say that walking and cycling should have equal status in transportation planning as cars and trucks. This is the new Transpo Department policy. It has no force in law, which would take, as I understand it, an act of congress.
-
Anyway, I got to thinking, what does equality in planning mean? I doubt it means equal funding, and as both a cyclist and a driver, I'm not sure there should be equality in funding for bike/pedestrian funding and motorized traffic funding. Like it or not, most of us will be using cars to commute. Any real movement to make cycling a realistic option to car commuting would require an investment on the part of employers, as much as from government transportation planners. Most of us can't show up at work, covered in sweat, and expect to do our jobs. Too many of us have jobs that require some interaction with the public, which means that employers would have to pony up for shower and locker rooms. In cities, off road mass transit would probably make more sense, as far as funding goes, than either car or bicycle funding. Here in Los Angeles, I can think of dozens of routes that would be perfect for subway or above ground, off road, light rail. A better investment than in high speed rail between Orange County to the bay area.
-
But since I do live in Los Angeles, and since I own four bicycles, and two pair of hiking boots, I also think about bike and walking routes. I find it very frustrating to see all of the stream beds, criss-crossing the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, channelized and lined in concrete, all with service roads. Lets get some money to open up those routes to foot and bike traffic. And for drivers who object to money going for bike paths, and don't forget most cyclists and pedestrians are also drivers, think of how nice your car commute will be if cyclists are riding along the Los Angles River, and all those stream beds that end up at the L.A. River. Put in plenty of marked bike lanes on streets, letting both cyclists and drivers know exactly where they should be on the road, and every one wins.