Buying A Bike

In 2012, after a year of scrimping and saving, I bought a 2008 Orbea Orca racing bike.  I loved that bike the way all men love machines which give them a sense of space and freedom. I loved its curvy lines and the way its black and gold paint gleamed in the sun. 

In June of 2014, a young man stole my bike out of my garage.  I grieved it's loss for a short while, yet once the possibility of it being recovered dried up, I set my mind to replacing it.  The dear people of my congregation took up a secret collection, and I found myself armed with the funds to really shop for a bike.  I rode many bikes, and in the end I bought the one I liked the best, a Franco Balcom S.  But that isn't the point of this post.  I wanted to share what I learned.

First of all, I learn that you shouldn't believe everything you read when it comes to bikes.  Each one of us is different: we are shaped differently, have different body compositions and different degrees of flexibility.  Each of us looks for something different in a bike based on our levels of fitness, coordination, and yes, our sense of style.  So, when a magazine gushes about a particular bicycle...well, that bike may not be the bike you want or need.  My case in point: If I had gone by what the magazines were saying, I would have ended up on a Cannondale EVO, Synapse, or a Specialized Tarmac.  These were the bikes the magazines all raved about.  However, of all the bikes I rode, these three were my least favorite.  The Cannondale bikes felt awkward and clumsy beneath me.  The Specialized rattled and bucked across any imperfection in the road.  Having said this, the 2014 Orbea felt right and familiar, even though it had scored poorly in magazine tests.  Similarly, a magazine had deemed the Franco Balcom S to be stiff and unforgiving, yet I found its ride far more comfortable than the EVO or the Tarmac.  The magazines aren't necessarily wrong; they simply have their own biases based on their experiences, expectations, and physical traits which are different from yours.

Secondly, I learned that the Conejo Valley is a great place to shop for a bicycle.  I had great experiences at each shop, with Franco, Serious Cycling, and Newbury Bike Shop giving me great input, service, and respect without being overly pushy.  I had a great experience at US Bike Company in Camarillo too.  The folks at Michael's Bike Shop are some of the nicest people you will ever come across, but you will want to talk to Michael himself.  My salesperson wouldn't let me test ride anywhere outside the parking lot.  I have also experienced going in to replace something only to have a salesperson say that kind of thing isn't made.

Thirdly, be prepared to spend time riding bikes.  Many times you will find that the latest or trickest features and designs simply don't add to the enjoyment factor.  I thought I wanted all internal cabling...but I bought a bike that has eternal shifter cables.  I thought about electronic shifting, but the mechanical shifting is so good anymore, why would you want to be required to plug you bike in or be worried about having a battery run flat while you are riding?

It took me a month and I ended up with a bike that wasn't really on my mind when I started...I ended up with a bike that probably has the lowest resale value of all I considered...but I bought the bike I liked the best, which in the end, should be the only reason for buying a bike.

Paying Athletes and the NCAA

On my way into work today, I heard that the conversations regarding paying NCAA athletes is heating up again.  Proponents like Ed O'Bannon and Shane Battier point to the billions of dollars flowing into the NCAA and its member schools as reason to pay athletes.  According to their arguments, it is an unfair labor situation when the institution allows other people to become wealthy and denies the athlete any payment on the use of his or her image and name.

As a former NCAA division 2 athlete, I completely agree with their assessment that something is stinky in the way the NCAA continues to operate.  However, I disagree with their assertion that athletes should get paid a stipend by the NCAA or by their schools.  I still believe that scholarship athletes are getting paid already.  When someone is attending a school that can run 50-70K a year free of charge, how is that not payment? 

I think that the NCAA needs to allow student athletes to profit on their name and image: if the school or the NCAA wants to print a jersey or marketing material which use the name or visage of a student-athlete, they should be required to negotiate with that athlete over remuneration. 

Every student athlete should retain the rights associated with their name ad visage.  These are the rights that the NCAA and the schools strip away from the young men and women that they profit from.  I believe that allowing student athletes to retain these rights will also allow the NCAA to control costs and allow for the "trickle down" benefit of Football and Basketball to continue helping with the lower-profile sports operate.

Such a decision wouldn't have helped me: I was a middle-of-the-road athlete competing in a non-scholarship division.  I ran Track & Field, a sport which brought in little or no income to Humboldt State University.  But I understand how a kid from the inner city would feel being at University, surrounded by kids who either have time to work a part-time job or by kids that come from money...sometimes you want to go to the movies or a concert with your friends.  Sometimes you want to take your girl to get a pizza or to a play...and if such a player can market their name and image to make some money, they should be able to.  But let's not go down the slippery-slope of paying athletes.  Let's not begin the never ending discussions about stipend schedules and what constitutes who is getting paid and who should simply be grateful their on the team or happy with their scholarship...If these discussions become the conversation, then all that makes collegiate athletics great begins to fade, and slowly, the smaller sports and good but not great athletes will get pushed out and denied the opportunity to learn more about teamwork, hard work, and perseverance.

Let's have a holistic conversation people, and come up with a fair solution where everyone wins.

Children, Elderly, and the church...

The other day, someone told me that we shouldn't have children in worship.  This person and I had a short conversation, and the main reason this person didn't think children should be in church came down to this: they are distracting.

Hmmm...so let me get this right, being undistracting qualifies who should be in church and who should be "kept out."  Don't misunderstand me, in any large group gathering where the communal focus is worshipping God and seeking contact with the divine presence, being distracting is not a good thing.  But a problem arises when we try to apply this principle to Sunday morning...because if kids aren't allowed in because they are distracting, then we have to keep the elderly out too.

So I blurted out, "Well, if the kids can't come in because they are distracting, then Mr. _____ can't either." 

The person I was chatting with looked alarmed.  "What do you mean?  He has been a faithful member of this church for over sixty years?"

So I explained, "Of course he should be in worship...but not a Sunday goes by when his hearing aid doesn't feedback at earsplitting volumes and he says in far too loud a voice to whoever is siting next him, 'I can't hear anything...what is he saying?'  Sometimes he drops the hearing aid and has to ask someone else to help him find it...or he announces he has to get up and go to the restroom...or his phone goes off and he either answers answers it or he asks someone to turn it off for him because he doesn't know how to!"

In short, the elderly are just as, if not more, distracting than children...and I still want to see them in church.  I want to see the children as well.  The fact that both are distracting is superflouos: the young will learn not only that all are welcome in the church, but the elderly should be held with respect and offered dignity. 

Christmas and Prayer

I have been working on my Christmas prayer for each of our three Christmas services.  I was about halfway through when I decided to see some others...and in my search, I came across a variety of angry articles in newspapers about how hard it is to find a place where Christians are allowed to pray in this country...

My prayer remains half-complete because I am angry and not in the right spirit to write the way I need to.  I'm angry because I am tired of being lied to by these voices complaining that we aren't allowed to pray anywhere.  I'm tired of having the voices of conservative talk show host and editors and fundamentalist pastors lie to our children and the people of our country.  Why are Christians telling our children they aren't allowed to pray?

Am I missing something? If a child bows their head at the beginning of class to dash off a quick prayer, will someone yell at them to stop?  Will an adult come and unfold the hands of kid who prays before he or she starts eating their lunch?  Is a coach going to make the athlete who kneels and prays before a game do extra wind-sprints because that simply isn't allowed?

Hear me now: nobody can stop you from praying anywhere or at anytime.  I'm even going to go out on a limb and say that nobody will ever stop you from praying. 

When are we going to start sending this message to our children?  When are we going to start preaching this message to our people?  When are we going to encourage people to openly practice their faith in simple, personal ways?

So as people line up to say that the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut are the result of prayer being banned in school, I say hogwash.  If our children aren't praying daily as part of their personal faith, we only have ourselves to blame.  If prayer isn't happening in schools, we only have ourselves to blame.

The Lance Armstrong Saga...

Last night's news included a report that Lance Armstrong has decided not to respond to USADA allegations that he used performance enhancing drugs during his cycling career.  As a result, he will be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and his Olympic gold medal. People's responses have been all over the board, from celebration to anger to feigned apathy...what is my response?

I'm not surprised. Mr. Armstrong fought desperately to have the case dismissed for legal reasons...none of his arguments and lawsuits had no mention of the pursuit of truth but everything to do with jurisdiction and due process...when all were dismissed he had one way to go: no-contest and a statement of innocence.

Let me say that in all probability, Mr. Armstrong participated in dangerous "blood-doping" practices.  The era in which he rode was filled with riders who sought competitive edges, and you either doped or became insignificant.  Trying to find and equitably punish every individual who used PEDs may be impossible and may render the entire era a forgotten asterisk in the history of sport...

So why Armstrong? Why take on the biggest name, who did so much for the sport, the industry, and single-handedly raised crazy money for cancer research?  Why grant immunity or insignificant punishment for people who doped to bring testimony against Armstrong?

I think there is something stinky in Denmark...

Ultimately, I think that Armstrong has become a pawn in a battle between the World Anti-Doping Administration (WADA) and the UCI, which governs international cycle-sports.  USADA, the organization which has brought the allegations, is a part of WADA.  Much of their proof involves evidence that UCI not only knew Armstrong and others were using illegal practices, it often overlooked evidence and actively covered up positive tests. I believe that when the smoke clears, we will see that all along, the real target in these cases has been the UCI.  After all, how can you work against illegal doping practices when the sport governance will not unilaterally and evenly implement the recommended practices?

Which brings us back to Mr. Armstrong.  Nobody likes to see a hero cut-down...yet through the years, evidence and stories of a man who is overly-competitive and narcissistic emerge. Maybe for him, this will allow him to settle down and really put his time and effort into helping the cancer community.  He did manage to fight through and survive cancer; he'll probably survive this.  Maybe through philanthropic activity, a different Lance Armstrong will emerge.  Maybe someday, we will hear the whole story.

Maybe, but until then, all we have is the court of public opinion; and if read the general response of that court, the verdict is one of sadness.

Killing bees

We killed a colony of bees today and it really has me down.  I mean, they were just doing what bees do: establish a colony, collect pollen, make honey...nobody had been stung, but in the name of safety, we had to do something...and according to the bee guy, there was no way of removing them without destroying them.  I could tell that he felt bad about it too.

I feel bad because we have a bee shortage in California...we are losing our honey bee population at an alarming rate, which is bad news for plants and farmers and our over-all eco-system.  We need bees, but they were in a inconvenient place and posed a possible threat to the humans who come in and out of our church...at least those who are allergic to them...but they were just doing what God had created them to do and be.

How often do we destroy or cast-off or kill those things we deem as inconvenient?  How often do we deem something dangerous and overlook its God-created uniqueness and place in the world?  Years ago, something clicked in me about how we humans are not the center of the universe: creation doesn't serve us.  We are a part of the whole, complex system that has ways of balancing and correcting itself when it falls into imbalance...I am tired of the way we move into areas, then eliminate the native, indigenous wildlife as nuisances and threats to safety when all they are trying to do is live where they were born.  I am also afraid, that one day the earth will put itself back into balance and humanity will be reminded who really wears the pants in this world...

visualtheology: Imagining the Lectionary: Going Underground (Easter 2B)

visualtheology: Imagining the Lectionary: Going Underground (Easter 2B)

I love The Jam.  I love Jesus.  I don't like politics...but two out of three ain't bad.  Great article on one of the ways Easter speaks to the world we live in...