Update on bike helmets

A friend sent me this article from Slate, entitled "The Cult of Bike Helmets."

It's a good read, providing a nice historical overview of how the helmet evolved and what it is designed to do and not to do. They also point out the "blame the victim" mentality of much media coverage of bicycle fatalities. Here's a nice little snippet, but read the whole thing, it isn't long.

I have been a bike commuter in every city I’ve lived in as an adult, including Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, Columbus, and New York City. I travel on two wheels for the exercise and fresh air, for environmental reasons, and for independent, efficient mobility.

In exchange, I feel unsafe, always, on my bicycle—and for sound reason. I’ve gotten doored in Times Square. I’m forced to weave in and out of bike lanes to avoid the vehicles that constantly park and loiter there. I hold my breath when a passing truck leaves only a few inches between my shivery flesh and its metal flanks.

I do what I can to protect myself. I use front and rear lights. I gravitate toward roads with designated bike lanes. I signal turns with my arms and ding my handlebar bells to attract the attention of inattentive drivers. And I never, ever leave home without my neon yellow helmet.

But as with many cyclists and lawmakers, I’ve increasingly found myself wondering: How much does my helmet help me, really? Are there costs to our single-minded devotion to it?

In the past 50 years, as helmet designs have become more sophisticated, adult cycling deaths in the United States have not declined—they’ve quadrupled. As I dug into the history of these humble foam-and-plastic shells, I learned that helmets have a far more complicated relationship to bike safety than many seem ready to admit.

Scapegoating again

There's an article on Bicycling Magazine's website, entitled "Cars Kill. Bike Helmets Don’t Change That." It's really about more than that, though. It's about how we assign blame so we don't have to change anything. Read the whole thing for more, but here's a good takeaway paragraph:

Studies show that the simple act of finding someone to blame in an accident makes people less likely to see systemic problems or seek systemic changes. One [study] prompted subjects with news stories about a wide variety of accidents: financial mistakes, plane crashes, industrial disasters. When the story blamed human error, subjects were more intent on punishment and less likely to question the built environment or seek investigation of organizations behind the accident. No matter the accident, blame took the place of prevention.

<idle musing>
As a pedestrian and bicyclist, I know that the odds are that if I get hit, I'm in serious trouble. I've already experienced that once and don't want it to happen again. But, why is it always the victim that is blamed?

And I don't mean just in auto-pedestrian and auto-bicyclist accidents. What about sexual misconduct cases? There's a lot of victim-blaming going on there, too.

Why?

Because it's a whole lot easier and cleaner to blame somebody than to face the fact that the system is broken.

But it is! Culture is broken. It's worshiping the wrong gods: Money, sex, and power.

It's the same gods that have always been worshiped, just wearing different clothes now.

Just an
</idle musing>

Time to move indoors

Last summer, while the pandemic was causing people to drive less and stay home, a terrible thing started happening. Drivers were getting more careless. I noticed it on my bike rides. I was being given less clearance. Frankly, it made me nervous riding my bike for the first time since I was in high school. And nation-wide the number of bike-car collisions was also going up—as was the number of collisions per mile driven. Basically, people were getting even more careless in driving.

Because of where we live, for me to ride any distance requires riding on busy state or federal highways. Consequently, I made the decision after almost 50 years of road-riding, to move strictly to the indoor trainer. Nothing that I've seen since has made me regret that decision. In fact, rather than simply careless, I suspect some drivers have become downright hostile to bicyclists. There has always been a bit of that. I've experienced it, but was only forced off the road once in all my years of riding.

But, this today, on NPR is truly horrific. Basically, the guy was aiming to hit and at the least injure cyclists. I don't know any more than the article says, but it is truly a sad state of affairs. I know most of you won't click through, so here's the relevant section:

A driver in a pickup truck plowed into bicyclists during a community road race in Arizona on Saturday, critically injuring several riders before police chased the driver and shot him outside a nearby hardware store, authorities said.

Six people were taken to a hospital in critical condition after the crash in the mountain town of Show Low, about a three-hour drive northeast of Phoenix, police said. Helmets, shoes and crumpled and broken bicycles were strewn across the street after the crash, and a tire was wedged into the grill of the truck, which had damage to its top and sides and a bullet hole in a window.

Here's a picture. Not pretty. I know what it's like to get hit by an F-150. It isn't fun. No helmet is going to help you when a truck hits you.

Another week gone by

and here's what I've been reading (well, some of what I've been reading anyway).

First off, Roger Olson explains what he means by his version of Evangelical. Personally, I'd just drop the label; no matter what you do, people will still think if means Trump-supporting fundamentalist.

Political Theology Network takes a look at guns and Christianity. Balanced approach, but right now it just raises more questions than answers. But that's good. Read it.

Anxious Bench argues for women theological education, but for a novel reason. Read it to find out. And speaking of ministry, Mike Glenn on Jesus Creed talks about our lack of capacity in the church. Nope, not physical space, but—well, read it. Here's a good taste:

Right now, we must grasp this idea of giving ministry away. The first Reformation gave the Word back to the people. The second Reformation will give ministry back to the people. Pastors will have to be the first ones to understand this. As long as we think we’re the only ones who can do the ministry of the church, our churches will be hampered in their effectiveness and limited in their impact. As we’ve mentioned before, Christ-followers are called from their sinfulness and called to a partnership with Christ in the service of His kingdom.

And speaking of capacity, how about our capacity to forgive? Fr. Stephen Freeman broaches that subject:

Of course, our experience of those who are truly enemies is that we do not want to forgive them. We do not trust them; the wound has been too deep; their offense is not against us but against someone we love who is particularly vulnerable. I could enlarge the list but we are all too familiar with it. The reasons we find it hard to forgive our enemies is endless.

But the commandment remains – not as a counsel of how to live a healthier, happier life – but with the added reminder that we will only find forgiveness as we forgive. Forgiveness is not optional – but a fundamental spiritual action which we must learn to use as though our salvation depended upon it – for it does.

Speaking of forgiveness, David Fitch is back with part 2 of the enemy-making machine:

If the enemy-making machine works to keep us locked in a zero-sum game, where only one person wins and the other person must lose, this passage in Matthew [18:15–20] moves us to a new place altogether. Here in this space of mutuality, “what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven.” We are being taken into God’s future, releasing the power of the kingdom to heal, transform, create something new.

He then shows how Jesus models conflict management in John 8. Yes, he knows the text-critical problems of the chapter (as do I); get over it!

Meanwhile, down under, Stephen McAlpine has a pair of posts, the first one looks at the great toilet paper run and how COVID-19 reveals the lack of foundation in our lives. The second one looks at the fallout from the willingness of society to encourage gender change in teen-agers. Hint: It ain't pretty. Remember, Ideas have consequences! If I were a lawyer, I'd say there is a marvelous opportunity to make a few bucks there. But, aside from that, all I see is ruined lives.

A little closer to home, on the Anxious Bench they tackle "political hobbyism"—a term I had never heard of before.

And so, for Lent, the solemn season of reflection and repentance, I have vowed to give up political hobbyism. I’m striving instead to trade shallow political engagement for deep political engagement, which focuses on building relationships, serving my community, and effecting real change that has an impact on my neighbors. I know from my research on religious communities and their involvement in immigration and refugee issues that this type of work matters immensely—not simply for meeting the real, immediate needs of people, but for creating enduring and impactful political change.

She then goes on to list some actual concrete examples. Good stuff.

Meanwhile, Bob on Books would settle for a bit of modesty. I'm with him.

I love my country. But as a Christian I love a God who loves the world (John 3:16), and so I need to see my country within the world God loves. To share God’s heart is to share his love, and to love the United States alone is too small to share the heart of God. I love a God who is holy, just and true, and this requires me to look at my country through these lenses as well.

When I look at things this way, it leads me to far greater modesty about my country. While not denying the goods, there is another kind of history about which I’ve learned since I was in school. Much of it isn’t pretty.

Again, read it!

John Hawthorne is retiring at the end of this year after 39 years in Christian higher ed. He muses over it in two parts part 1, looking back, and part 2, looking forward. Good insights.

The Atlantic compares the COVID-19 virus to the Spanish influenza a century ago. Hint: it was much worse that this one. In fact, there's no real comparison. But there are some lessons to learn from it.

The BBC looks at the death of the apostrophe. I doubt it's dead, but it is certainly misused/abused. Fun read, though.

Rounding out this week, is a look at James Daunt, the guy who is now running Barnes & Noble. I hope he can bring them back from the brink of bankruptcy. One thing is certain, he's on the right path in emulating the independent bookstore. And for the first time in years, B&N is being run by an actual bookseller.

Final note: Incoming college students—you know, the digital natives—would still rather use a physical textbook! And not just a majority, but 76 percent. So that's good news for the booksellers, isn't it?

And no, I didn't read a post about Amazon this week. But, I did see an interesting note on Bicycling about a NASCAR racer who is apparently pretty famous but is also a bicyclist, Jimmie Johnson. Maybe he can raise awareness so I don't have to worry as much about getting run off the road. Well, I can wish, can't I?

OK; I really am done here. Read the links and have a healthy week.

In case you've been living under a rock this last week...

Christianity Today published an op-ed endorsing impeachment and removal of the current president. All that needs to be said was in that op-ed. Of course, the resulting onslaught of criticism is to be expected. When you put your hope in an idol, any idol, and that idol gets attacked, you fight back, right? That's what the Israelites did when Jeremiah confronted them. That's what happened to Amos when he confronted the Northern Kingdom. Of course, that doesn't make it any fun for the ones being attacked. Here's the final paragraph of the editorial:

We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.

Well said. Yes, I wish they had taken a stand years ago, but at least they did it now. Galli is well-aware that it probably won't make a difference in the general evangelical population. CT has always been a magazine for the evangelicals who tend to be more intellectually inclined.

Here's a couple responses that I would consider balanced: The Atlantic; John Fea has had numerous posts, but this one sums up the hypocrisy of certain "court evangelicals". I could link to others, such as Warren Throckmorton, but you get the idea.

The Anxious Bench reflects on Ron Sider and his influence. Summary statement at the end: "Ron Sider is still trying to evangelize the evangelicals."

Meanwhile, someone raised evangelical reflects on that heritage. Worth pondering. In my experience, people are always receptive to bringing up church history, the church fathers, etc. when explaining why a certain doctrine is the way it is, and why another one is incorrect. What they won't tolerate, though, is when I start drawing conclusions on how we should live based on those doctrines. In other words, keep it in the mind and you are fine. Touch my stuff, and you are in serious trouble. That seems to be a recurring theme, doesn't it? Genesis 3 anyone?

Speaking of that, remember the Wheaton professor who wore a hijab? Remember her name? I didn't think so; neither did I, but her life is slowly being put back together. A documentary is being made. Read the article for a small taste of what it must be like to be an Afro-American woman at an evangelical school who dares to say something less than acceptable to the alumni. Remember, for small evangelical schools, the alumni are what keeps the school afloat. As high as the tuition is at those schools, that doesn't pay the bills. Not even close. And the endowments aren't huge. I know; I went to one: Asbury College (now University). And over the years, I've watched the alumni at other small schools force those schools to give "the left boot of fellowship" to professors who said things they didn't like. Didn't matter whether what they said was true or not. Of course that shouldn't surprise us, should it? The Old Testament prophets wouldn't win any popularity contests, would they?

But the US evangelical scene isn't the only evangelical scene in disarray. Brexit, the never coming, never going away issue for the (un)United Kingdom has evangelicals there in disagreement.

And speaking of the UK, my favorite Classicist, who happens to have been born on my birthday (only a few years earlier), Mary Beard, reflects on the current status of higher education. Many good points there; do read it.

As long as we're in academia, how about a feel-good piece? Times Higher Education (THE) asks "Is there still a place for kindness in today’s harsh academic environment?" And then gives personal testimonies by academics on how little acts of kindness went a long way when they were just starting out. I'll have more to say on that next week (I hope) as I recount a couple from my past. Meanwhile, be sure to check it out; here's a taste:

This act of academic kindness occurred some years ago, but I only heard about it recently, from its beneficiary. She was teaching part-time at my university when, at short notice and in the middle of the marking season, she was shortlisted for a full-time post at another institution. Two of my colleagues—one a full-time lecturer, the other part-time herself—took all her marking off her so that she had time to prepare for her presentation and interview.

In their book On Kindness (2009), Adam Phillips and Barbara Taylor argue that kindness is now seen as “a virtue of losers”. They attribute this to the ascendancy of free-market individualism, which has cultivated competitiveness and mistrust and led to “a life of overwork, anxiety, and isolation”.

If they are right, then kindness should also be endangered within the university. The new managerialism urges us to see ourselves as hard-nosed entrepreneurs competing for awards, grants and research time, while also making us feel that no amount of success will ever appease the gods of compliance. It makes the modern university not so much a cruel as a callous place, one where feeling harassed and stressed makes us thoughtless and self-absorbed. We are rarely unkind on purpose, but being unkind by accident usually has the same effect.

What is remarkable, though, is the doggedness of our desire to be kind. There is still room in academia for what A.H. Halsey, in The Decline of Donnish Dominion (1992), calls “commensality”, which literally means sharing a table and which he uses to mean that intangible sense of collegiality on which we thrive. Universities would grind to a halt without these millions of small, inconspicuous acts of goodwill.

On that same hopeful note, here is a nice advent meditation. A small excerpt, but it's a short enough piece you should read the whole thing:

Instead, Jesus completely disregarded the idea that the woman or himself were defiled, inherently capable of defiling others, or needed separation from others. The woman wasn’t an obstacle to overcome on his way to arguably more important tasks, nor was she an object of defilement he had to protect himself from. Jesus instead acknowledged and blessed her publicly then went on his way unflustered, undeterred.

Paranoid? Think you are being followed? Well, you probably are, but it's that smartphone in your pocket that's doing the following. And the data are being monetized to target you with ads for stuff you don't need, but probably think you want. Read this. Of course, I doubt you'll give up your phone (I won't), but at least consider turning off tracking on as many apps as you can. And, remember that the ads you see are designed to own you. You read that right. They aren't just trying to part with your money; they want your soul. They want you to buy into the lie that without stuff you are less a human.

OK. This is getting long, but I have three more links, all tied to bad practices by the current administration (and in one case, the past two administrations):

You've been lied to about the war in Afghanistan. OK, you already knew that, or at least suspected it. But the real crime is

The lack of accurate statistics should bother us, just as the misrepresentation of them should disturb us even more. But the greatest outrage over these numbers is the fact that the United States never seriously considered that they needed to document the loss of Afghan lives in the first place.

We need to stop and pause at this reality because within it is the entire reason why the war has become the disaster that it is today. The United States never cared about counting the bodies of dead Afghans caused by the war they started. They didn’t count the dead, they didn’t count the wounded, and they didn’t count the displaced or traumatized.

They didn’t count the Afghans because the Afghans didn’t count.

As Christians, that should bother us. 'Nuff said there. Next, the new rules about sexual assault on campuses. What? I can't even begin to describe how wrong that is. Ask any rape counsellor about that idea. Want the number of reported assaults to go down without actually doing anything to prevent them (and possibly even encouraging more!)? They just wrote the ticket.

Final link. The FCC is stealing part of the radio spectrum set aside for improving car, bicycle, and pedestrian safety and giving it to, wait for it, Facebook and other commercial entities. As if you don't already check your Facebook status too much! Here are the bullet points, but read the whole article for more details:

The FCC recently announced it was reducing the airwave spectrum for vehicle-to-vehicle communication in cars.

This technology is supposed to reduce the amount of car wrecks by communicating from car to car things like speed, acceleration, hard braking, and red lights.

The move could set back the forward movement of vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-infrastructure communication in the U.S.

On that note, I'll end. This world is a mess, but Jesus is the hope. Someday, he will come back and set things straight, but in the meantime, we are called to live in love to our neighbors, praying for them and assisting them. All this can only happen by the power of the Holy Spirit living within us and through us. Don't forget that and fall into self-righteousness and pride—or despair that you don't reach some goal.

Links of interest

This week's links will include stuff for the last two weeks. Last Saturday was the first day of AAR/SBL, so I was quite busy. That also means I didn't collect as many links as normal this week. Hopefully you will find something of interest to you.

For starters, Ron Sider reflects on Democrats and abortion:

Even if you think (as I do) that on a majority of issues, Democratic proposals (e.g., on racial and and economic justice, healthcare, taxes, climate change) are closer to a biblical vision than that of Republicans, still the ever increasing refusal of Democrats to take seriously the pro-life concerns of Christians and others is a problem.

Former President Bill Clinton told a good friend of mine that the reason his wife Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania( and therefore the presidency) was because of her radical stand on abortion. In 2008 when she ran for the Democratic nomination, she said abortion should be” legal, safe and rare”. In 2016, she no longer said it should be rare. The head of the Democratic National Committee recently told another good friend of mine that in his circles, one did not dare even use the word “reduction” when talking about abortion. . .

This rigidity is politically foolish. The Gallup Paul repeatedly has shown that about 25% of Americans think abortion should never be legal. 25% think it should be legal in every situation. And about 50% think abortion should be legal ONLY in certain circumstances.

One would think the Democrats would ponder the fact that Democrats very recently won the race to be governor in two very conservative states ( West Virginia and Louisiana) where Donald Trump won by huge margins in 2016. And both successful Democratic governors endorsed a pro-life agenda that would place some restrictions on abortion. . .

One final point. I do NOT think that abortion trumps all other issues. Universal healthcare is a pro-life issue. So are capital punishment, climate change, racial justice and effective poverty reduction programs here and abroad. One must evaluate the entire platform of candidates and decide which set of proposals on balance is better. People who seek a biblically balanced agenda in their politics will not be “one issue” voters.

Amen! And this one, from the Atlantic, about dishonesty in the abortion debate.

What I can’t face about abortion is the reality of it: that these are human beings, the most vulnerable among us, and we have no care for them. How terrible to know that in the space of an hour, a baby could be alive—his heart beating, his kidneys creating the urine that becomes the amniotic fluid of his safe home—and then be dead, his heart stopped, his body soon to be discarded.

The argument for abortion, if made honestly, requires many words: It must evoke the recent past, the dire consequences to women of making a very simple medical procedure illegal. The argument against it doesn’t take even a single word. The argument against it is a picture.

This is not an argument anyone is going to win. The loudest advocates on both sides are terrible representatives for their cause. When women are urged to “shout your abortion,” and when abortion becomes the subject of stand-up comedy routines, the attitude toward abortion seems ghoulish. Who could possibly be proud that they see no humanity at all in the images that science has made so painfully clear? When anti-abortion advocates speak in the most graphic terms about women “sucking babies out of the womb,” they show themselves without mercy. They are not considering the extremely human, complex, and often heartbreaking reasons behind women’s private decisions. The truth is that the best argument on each side is a damn good one, and until you acknowledge that fact, you aren’t speaking or even thinking honestly about the issue. You certainly aren’t going to convince anybody. Only the truth has the power to move.

But it's easier to shout at each other, isn't it? I am firmly prolife—from womb to tomb. That's why I am in favor of universal healthcare and against war. And that's why we need to address the inequalities in our society that force people to think that abortion is an option.

Ok, now for those of you who are sick of the "angry god" approach, take a look at this:

For Jesus, it’s not about whether we are sinners (he knows we are) or whether we are obedient to all God’s rules (he knows we aren’t). It’s about gratitude. We don’t deserve God’s grace, but God gives it to us anyway. We are healed. The challenge to us is whether we can live in gratitude. The challenge is for us to proclaim God’s ridiculous and excessive and undeserved grace for us sinners and thank God for it every day.

Now that is good news! And speaking of grace, Bob on Books reviews Grace Will Lead Us Home, about the Charleston church massacre:

I’m reminded of a Bible that was once my grandmother’s, probably looks much like Sanders Bible. She, like Felicia, loved the Bible, underlined many verses and wrote notes in the margins. She lived the Bible. I wonder how many in our churches are truly shaped by its message like the people in that Bible study, or like my grandmother. Instead of the disturbing messages that prey on fear, do they hear the Master’s “be not afraid.” Do they build walls or welcome the stranger and the alien? Instead of profiting from inequities, defining the world in terms of allies and enemies, and measuring one’s worth by what power one has, do they “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8)?

And a tale of racial reconciliation with two churches, one primarily white, the other primarily black, merging.

Three years into the merger, The Refuge remains united. Pastor Jay’s congregation in Kannapolis now numbers around 4,000. And Pastor Derrick’s community has swelled to 250 families. Through their love of Christ and their love for each other, Pastor Jay and Pastor Derrick have guided their communities through any divisions that might threaten their unity.

Could theirs be a model for healing our nation?

You will have to click the link for the answer : ) But it's easier to yell at each other, isn't it?

Speaking of healing, Jesus Creed has a good post on "Dry Drunks":

I think most people in most congregations are dry drunks. Here’s what I mean by that. Most people come to Jesus in some kind of crisis. Something is going wrong in their lives and they cry out to Jesus, and Jesus in His mercy saves them. They aren’t struck by lightning. Demons do not pull them away into the darkness.

The crisis is averted. Things get better. Things aren’t healed, but they are better. Now, feeling better, the person stops right there. They have met Jesus, but they don’t follow Jesus. They may be born again, but they don’t grow again. They’re stuck right where Jesus found them. The wounds, left untended, fester into bitterness. Their anger slowly stews into bigotry and self-righteousness. They delight in pointing out the failures of others and seem determined to make sure everyone is as miserable as they are.

Ouch! Shifting gears a bit, is Kafka still relevant? Crooked Timber says yes:

“A cage went in search of a bird”

Franz Kafka certainly knew how to write a story. The eight-word aphorism he jotted down in a notebook a century ago reveals so much about our world today. Surveillance goes in search of subjects. Use-cases go in search of profit. Walled gardens go in search of tame customers. Data-extractive monopolies go in search of whole countries, of democracy itself, to envelop and re-shape, to cage and control. The cage of surveillance technology stalks the world, looking for birds to trap and monetise. And it cannot stop itself. The surveillance cage is the original autonomous vehicle, driven by financial algorithms it doesn’t control. So when we describe our data-driven world as ‘Kafka-esque’, we are speaking a deeper truth than we even guess.

And so on. Well worth the read. Shifting gears again, Roger Olson discusses theological knowledge among the average church-goer. Hint: there isn't much, even among those going to Christian colleges:

I have taught Christian theology for forty years—to college and seminary students. I have noticed a definite “thinning out” of their knowledge and understanding of the Bible and theology and one culprit, I strongly believe, is the demise of hymns. Very few “praise and worship” songs contain anything biblical or theological. They appear to focus on God but seem actually to be designed to evoke emotions.

I’ve said all this before. The great hymns of people like Charles Wesley, William Cowper, Isaac Watts, Charles Gabriel, Johnson Oatman, Jr., and numerous others of the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries contained powerful lyrics that taught about God, salvation, sin, eternity, heaven, etc. Some of those songs are being rediscovered and put to new tunes or given new arrangements by contemporary worship leaders. But most of the songs I hear for congregational singing in major metropolitan evangelical churches are repetitious, shallow and unsingable by anyone except the worship band musicians. (emphasis original)

Yep. And an Aussie talks about the different way we treat males and females who are well-known preachers:

Can us male preachers even begin to imagine what that would feel like?! Our sisters put up with a thousand times more criticism than us, much of it disrespectful, cruel, belittling and hateful, much of it focused on their very identity not just their actions.

Observing the criticism of Jory Micah’s video reminded me that her critics aren’t simply expressing a different interpretation of Scripture to her. They are attacking her with openly sexist taunts.

Whether you agree with women preaching or not, it is incumbent on every male church leader to condemn the cruel and vicious sexism behind the attacks on Jory Micah. (emphasis original)

What we need is less toxic masculinity and more godly behavior. And Roger Olson has some thoughts on that:

Kimmel rightly criticizes the old advice to men who feel neglected and are disaffected: “Man up!” He rightly says that is not helpful. We need to show them how to man up and he points back to President Obama’s strong effort to support new job training for both men and women in America’s community colleges—free. He blames the Republican controlled Congress for killing that effort.

In other words, Kimmel is sympathetic to the plight of many men in America who, rightly or wrongly, feel disenfranchised and turned to populism in the form of Trump and the Republican Party. He argues, however, that their hopes in that direction are misguided. The case is really that the programs of the Left are more likely to help them. It’s like a great delusion.

In yet other words, Kimmel believes and argues that it will be counterproductive for society simply to ignore white men’s (and their wives’) complaints or to demonize them because they elected Trump and the Republican Party. He calls for a dialogue between feminists and anti-feminist men (not crazy, radical, violent ones) and a coalition of the willing to at least attempt to hear each other and work together toward a better world where there is true and complete equality between the sexes but men do not feel left behind.

There's that word dialogue again. Rarely happens, unfortunately. It's much easier to yell at each other. Or shoot each other. Speaking of which, here's an idea, from Jim West, after listing nine things, he concludes:

The Second Amendment says that you have the right to bear arms, but it doesn’t say you have the right to have bullets.

Elegant, but not going to happen. It's easier to yell at each other. And social media doesn't help. From the Atlantic again:

Many Americans may think that the chaos of our time has been caused by the current occupant of the White House, and that things will return to normal whenever he leaves. But if our analysis is correct, this will not happen. Too many fundamental parameters of social life have changed. The effects of these changes were apparent by 2014, and these changes themselves facilitated the election of Donald Trump.

If we want our democracy to succeed—indeed, if we want the idea of democracy to regain respect in an age when dissatisfaction with democracies is rising—we’ll need to understand the many ways in which today’s social-media platforms create conditions that may be hostile to democracy’s success. And then we’ll have to take decisive action to improve social media. (emphasis original)

Yep. But it's easier to yell at one another, isn't it?

How about the Mormons? They seem to be moving in the direction of orthodoxy, but before you rejoice too much, beware, says this blogger:

What I’ve written is only the tip of the iceberg regarding LDS heterodox beliefs, the sum of which is the “Restored Gospel.” The original true gospel had vanished at the end of the first-century apostolic era. That true gospel was then restored by Joseph Smith after some eighteen hundred years of apostasy. Really. I say it again. The “Restored Gospel” is Mormonism. Period.

Mouw blames Christians generally, and counter-cults specifically, for misrepresenting Mormon beliefs in an effort to malign them. I’ve encountered that myself. But Mouw misrepresents their beliefs in order to befriend and bolster them. Serious interaction with Mormons about their beliefs must be based on LDS scriptures and other official teachings, not on what a BYU professor might say. Smith’s visions and revelations contain startling instructions and information. . .

Definitely need to be cautious and watch for further developments on that front. I'm cautiously hopeful. Speaking of hopeful, there's a move afoot in some schools to revive the humanities:

The Cornerstone example demonstrates that the liberal arts can prosper even at a STEM-centered campus like Purdue. "We’re trying to show," said Reingold, that a liberal-arts education can be "central to the mission" even of a large, comprehensive research university.

I like that idea.

Finally, a look at how reporting influences attitudes. In this case, who's to blame in bicycle-car and pedestrian-car collisions. Mind you, they are not accidents, which implies they couldn't be prevented. They can be, but it isn't easy—and as we've seen in this series of posts, it's far easier to yell at each other, isn't it? Anyway, this post from Bicycling Magazine takes a look at how the way something is worded affects how people respond:

Version 1: The news story is pedestrian-focused; “Pedestrian struck and killed on east side.”

Version 2: The news story is driver-focused; “Driver hits, kills pedestrian on east side.”

Version 3: The news story is driver-focused and thematically framed; “Driver hits, kills pedestrian on east side as pedestrian deaths continue to increase city-wide.”

The researchers found that our current methods of reporting on traffic crashes, like in version one, influenced people to place more blame on the pedestrian; 43.1 percent of readers believed the pedestrian was at fault, while 50.2 percent thought the driver was at fault according to the first description of the scenario.

Yep. Blame the victim is the way it is usually reported. As a philologist and amateur linguist, I know words matter. Think before you speak/write. What response do you want? Hopefully it isn't outrage—but of course, it is easier to shout at one another, isn't it? Hmmm . . . seems to be a pattern here, doesn't it?

Ok, that's more than enough to ponder. Hope you had a truly thankful Thanksgiving Day, whatever it's historical origins (that's another series of posts that I won't be doing!).

Interesting links

Lost of them this week, especially if you follow the bicycling safety scene. Here's two of them, both from Bicycling:
The Actual Reasons More Cyclists Are Dying on the Streets: And, No. It’s not Really about Helmets.

1. Vehicles Are Bigger
2. Smartphone Use Is on the Rise
3. People Drive More Than Ever
4. There Are More Cyclists on the Roads
5. Vision Zero Has Stalled

And Turns Out, Mandatory Helmet Laws Make Cyclists Less Safe: Requiring All Riders to Wear a Helmet Has Proven Negative Effects.

We have seen over and over again that the following outcomes result from even the best-intentioned mandatory helmet laws:

A reduction in the number of cyclists on streets;
Financial struggle for popular bike sharing systems; and
More exposure among vulnerable populations to unnecessary interactions with police.

I can't resist; here is another one.

Here's a feel-good story about Mr. Rogers:

As for Fred: It’s true that he lost, and that the digitization of all human endeavor has devoured his legacy as eagerly as it has devoured everything else. But that he stands at the height of his reputation 16 years after his death shows the persistence of a certain kind of human hunger—the hunger for goodness. He had faith in us, and even if his faith turns out to have been misplaced, even if we have abandoned him, he somehow endures, standing between us and our electrified antipathies and recriminations like the Tank Man of Tiananmen Square in a red sweater. He is a warrior, all right, because he is not just unarmed, outgunned, outnumbered; he is long gone, and yet he keeps up the fight.

How about a compromise in the laptops in the classroom wars?

And Pete Enns on Antiexpertism: "Anti-Expertism: I Sort of Get It but I Don’t." And, here's a theologian I've never heard of, but should read: How a 20th century theologian became a quiet prophet for our distracted age." While Roger Olson asks "Who Needs a God Who Looks Like Us?":

I do not believe we need God to be like us. We need to be like God. And God has given us something of himself in the imago dei and offers us partial participation in his own life by grace.

Wanting God to be like me would be idolatry. There is nothing wrong with wanting God to be my companion, in solidarity with me, helping me to be more like him and to love others and to be the very best human in his image possible. That’s not what I’m talking about here. What I’m talking about here is the common desire, especially in some contemporary forms of theology, for a God who is like “us” (with “us” meaning some particular group of people).

Let me be blunt. God is not an American. God is not white. God is not male. God is not a capitalist. God is not a consumer. God is not literally father or mother. God is our parent and we are his offspring, but that is an analogy and in it he is the perfect parent and we are poor copies at best. God is not black. God is not female. God is not a radical revolutionary. God is not an Englishman or a German or any human nationality. God is not a big man with a beard and crown glaring down on the creation (as in Monty Python’s “Search for the Holy Grail” movie). God is not my co-pilot or CEO or business partner. (Most of these are drawn from real books or images I have encountered over the years.)

Amen and amen! Let's follow that with Michael Bird's op-ed:

Christians should not imbibe their political convictions from charismatic ideologues who either stir up rage within them or who scare them into prejudice. Christians should instead be prayerfully and thoughtfully considering what it means to follow Jesus in their own nation and neighborhood. Then, together with our church family, seek after things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely and admirable (Philippians 4:8), and humbling asking God to give us the wisdom and courage to pursue them (James 1:5).

Indeed! Along those same lines, Missio Alliance talks about being liberated by perfect love. A good Wesleyan theme! Their version does seem a bit too self-centered for my blood, but the perfect love of Christ will fix that.

And another look at work from Stephen McAlpine, in the first of a two-part series: "Work: A means of identity production AND stress production: Part 1"

You’ll be sitting on the couch exhausted, with a pile of marking/legal documents in one hand, your iPhone in the other, and a second glass of red wine in that third hand, exhausted and ready to cry. Geoff [a physical laborer] won’t have worked harder than you that day, but he will have drawn a line under it, in a way that you can’t – because the job won’t let you, and in a way that you won’t, because your sense of identity won’t let you.

Let's switch gears here a bit. The Anxious Bench asks How to break down prejudice. Turns out it's pretty easy (and hard): make friends who are different from you. Get outside the echo chamber.

And, last item: Scot McKnight looks at a book on being a Nicene Christian [emphasis below is original].

Finally, Ayers’ words remind me as a preacher that preaching for encounter–something that my charismatic/pentecostal forebears did with great passion – is not out of step with the faith of the fathers and mothers of the Church. There is no inherent contradiction between being a good exegete, being a good theologian, and being a good old fashioned “call you to the altar” kind of preacher. Rather, those dynamics – exegesis, theology, and encounter–are part of the single, seamless garment that the preacher wears, and preaching that does not seek to lead the hearer to a sacramental and transformative encounter with the living God revealed in the Incarnate Christ is not preaching at all.

Insisting on encounter as an essential part of the preacher’s task does not make us wild pentecostals (not that there’s anything wrong with that!) or fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists. It makes us Nicene Christians.

Let me encourage you, friend, to fall in love with the Bible again; to seek the living Christ revealed and revealing himself inside every page of the sacred text; to search for him as the treasure hidden in the field of Holy Writ; to seek him transfigured in every jot and tittle of the Law and Prophets.

Next week the Annual Meetings of ASOR/ETS/AAR/SBL are all happening. I'll at the AAR/SBL ones; if you're there, stop by and see me at the Eisenbrauns/PSU Press booth (638). Hopefully, I'll be posting before that, though : )

Stop blaming the pedestrian or bicyclist!

Just read this about a bike/truck collision. I think the author is right on the money. Here's an excerpt:

News stories about drivers who hit cyclists often implicitly absolve the driver and blame the victim. First, there’s almost always a lack of agency coupled with the passive voice: it’s never “a driver hit a cyclist.” Instead, it’s usually something like “a cyclist was hit by a car.” (Yet you never read about how a shooting victim “collided with a bullet.” Go figure.) Then there’s generally some insinuation that it must have been the victim’s fault, often along the lines of “It’s unclear whether the victim was wearing a helmet.”

and a bit later on:

the story quoted above is under 200 words long. There’s not a single mention of the motorist; instead, the victims were “struck by a pickup truck,” as though it were somehow self-driving. The account also contains no fewer than five mentions of the word “helmet,” yet it doesn’t remind people to drive more carefully or cite relevant motor vehicle code, not even once. The helmet exhortation is especially vexing since the little girl only sustained minor injuries. So, what, are we supposed to believe that if she’d been wearing a helmet the driver wouldn’t have hit her in the first place? Or are we supposed to think a child’s bicycle helmet offers meaningful protection against a Tacoma and that the real mitigating factor isn’t the luck that just happened to be on her side?

It’s almost like, in our bizarre logistical and ethical framework, dying while wearing a helmet is preferable to surviving without one. (emphasis added)

Eleven years later and cars still are closer to bicyclists

Back in 2007, I posted a study that showed that drivers give bicyclists less room if they wear a helmet. Well, Bicycling Magazine just published an article with a link to an updated version. Bottom line?

The new paper from Walker also re-affirms that wearing a helmet was indeed associated with more “close” passes when you take into consideration that in some places, the law dictates more than one meter of room.

And a month ago they posted about "helmet scolds":

If you’ve ever ridden a bike without a helmet, you’ve likely run into helmet scolds. They’ll tell you at length why you should never ride without one, about the risks and dangers. Don’t you know cycling is perilous, even for seasoned riders? They’ll come armed with statistics and tell you about that one time they crashed unexpectedly while pedaling around the block.

Indeed. I've run into that many times over the last eleven years after ditching the helmet. So, what do I do? Well, I still don't use a helmet, although the newer designs have done a good bit to work on the problems of concussion (see my 2007 link). If they continue to make progress there, I might reconsider. One thing is certain: drivers now are more distracted. Despite laws against texting while driving, I still regularly see drivers doing so as we walk.

Because of that, I'm trying to do things to raise my visibility. I wear a fluorescent yellow jersey. When it's cold enough to wear a jacket, I usually wear my yellow one. Also, since moving to Red Wing, I have added a new strobe tail light that I use, even during the day; I seem to be getting more clearance when I have it—contrary to this post from 2015. But, it's a different culture here than on the North Shore, more traffic and more used to bicycles in general.

I have no delusions, though, that I will be seen. I'm always watching and expecting cars to either not see me, or try to run me off the road. Someone trying to run me off the road has actually only happened once in the last 15 years, by a couple of guys driving a pick-up truck, trying to prove they were "real men." On the whole, drivers have always given me enough room when they see me. My goal is to make sure they see me while also watching them assuming they don't!

Bicycling, an observation

I've been riding in the mornings along Highway 61 for the last 6–8 weeks. The last week or so has been relatively foggy, so I've started turning on my flashing tail light (for those who care, it's a Planet Bike Superflash) before starting.

Some days the fog has turned out less dense than it appeared at first. On those days, I've noticed a scary pattern: The cars/trucks give me less clearance. That's right, they don't move over as much as when I'm not using the tail light. Now, that's not a big deal to me, because I'm riding on the generous shoulder, but it reinforce the findings that I posted way back in 2007 about helmet use. For those who don't click the link, motorists gave less clearance to cyclists wearing helmets than to those who didn't wear helmets! Counterintuitive, isn't it?

Here's my theory: Without a flashing light, the vehicles see a bicycle, but aren't exactly sure where it is on the rode, so they give you more clearance, just to be safe. With the flashing light, you are more visible to them, so they feel more confident that you have a enough room.

Now, I'm not going to stop using the Superflash on foggy days, but it does make you wonder...

The helmet, a tough decision

I read an interesting study last week on helmet use and bicycling. Now, I ride between 2500 and 3000 miles a year on country roads, so the results of this study aren’t just an academic interest to me; they affect the way I live, since any decision I make can be life-threatening.

Walker attached ultrasonic sensors to his bike and rode around Bath, allowing 2,300 vehicles to overtake him while he was either helmeted or naked-headed. In the process, he was actually contacted by a truck and a bus, both while helmeted—though, miraculously, he did not fall off his bike either time.

His findings, published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention, state that when Walker wore a helmet drivers typically drove an average of 3.35 inches closer to his bike than when his noggin wasn't covered. But, if he wore a wig of long, brown locks—appearing to be a woman from behind—he was granted 2.2 inches more room to ride.

My experiences while living in Minneapolis confirm his findings. I didn’t tally it, and I certainly didn’t have ultra-sonic sensors! But, when I wore a helmet (which was usually), the traffic would give me less space; when I forgot my helmet, they would give me more space, or slow down until they could. It wasn’t something I consciously kept track of, but rather a general impression.

Another scary site I ran across the same day is cyclehelmets.org. I hadn’t seen these data before, but they certainly were enough to make me reconsider my stand on helmets. The fact that a helmet can actually lead to more brain damage because of torsion was especially scary.

Based on these sets of data, I have decided to begin, once again, to ride without a helmet. As I said, this is not something I do lightly and frivolously, since it can affect my life in a very real way on a daily basis, but I think the data lead to that conclusion. I am not going to become an “anti-helmet evangelist,” but if people ask why I no longer wear a helmet, I will tell them.