Merchants of Fine Goods for Traditional Road Bicycling, Randonneuring, and Cyclotouring.
Merchants of Fine Goods for Traditional Road Bicycling, Randonneuring, and Cyclotouring. |
|
Blog (click here for the new Tullio's Blog) It seems that everyone has a blog these days, and I'm just not convinced that we all have that much to say. I certainly don't have an interest in reading all these blogs. Still, I figured it would be a good place for shop updates and my usual rants. Pick a subject, I've got at least one rant about it: bicycles, politics, religion, industry, philosophy, ancient rhetoric (what the hell - I got my master's degree in it, might as well put it to use somewhere), etc. UPDATE: OK, I've decided to go whole hog, regular blog. You can find it now here. ANOTHER UPDATE: I also have a new blog with Common Grounds BookCafe owner Julia Messina that is all about the Illinois Valley. It's called the Illinois Valley Voice. Check it out here. April 19, 2006 - Going Legit April 18, 2006 (continued) - Best of Tullio's What are your faves? Let me know here. April 18, 2006 - Born to Ride (with apologies to The Boss) Wendy let me in I wanna be your friend Beyond the palace, pacelining drones scream down the boulevard The highway’s jammed with broken chains all Shimano Hyperglide April 17, 2006 - The New Robber Barons It was recently reported that CEO salaries increased by 25% in 2005 compared to an increase of just over 3% for the average worker. CEOs in Fortune 100 companies earn an average of just over $17 million per year. So, isn’t this just the free market at work? It doesn't seem that way. Executive compensation is typically determined by a corporation’s board of directors. The directors are typically hand-picked by the executives. Wall Street will go along and keep the stock price up as long as the numbers look good, and that leads to a focus on the short-term. If a CEO earning, say, $20 million per year is running a corporation that turns a $1 billion profit, that level of compensation would seem fair, right? That $20 million is only 2% of the total profit. Yet one has to ask how much affect any individual has on a company’s profitability. If we assume that a CEO has little impact on profit, then why pay them so much? If we assume that a CEO has a great impact on profit, then let’s pay them on a commission basis. A 2% commission means compensation of $20 million if the company earns a $1 billion profit. If the company has no profit, the CEO gets no pay. Better yet, if the company loses $1 billion, the CEO refunds $20 million! It seems that the system we have today is broken. CEOs are earning huge salaries regardless of corporate profitability. In fact, a number of high profile companies have recently INCREASED executive compensation while going through bankruptcy. That’s right. While stiffing creditors, laying off workers, and cutting pay and benefits for the average employee, the executives are giving themselves a raise! Frustrated by the inability to control executive excesses through in-house channels, some investors have turned to shareholder lawsuits to hold corporate officers accountable to the people who actually own the company. As a result, executives have turned to Congress for help in reducing or eliminating such suits. Guess who will win that one? Long live the robber baron! What do you think? Send me your comments and please indicate whether you are a robber baron. April 10, 2006 - Just How "Enlightened" Are You? If you watch this film, at some point you are going feel uncomfortable. You are going to get offended. You are going to think someone has crossed a line. And you get to see just how open-minded you really are. It’s easy to condemn others for overreacting to an offensive joke, but how do we react when we are the ones offended? Can we still see the humor intended? You might say that you wouldn’t want to see such humor banned but don’t want to hear it yourself. OK, but isn’t that a cop out? Let’s learn to laugh at what offends us. Let’s learn to laugh at ourselves. Let’s revel in the vile and repugnant because in doing so we reduce it to absurdity, and that is what this movie is about – absurdity. The humor comes not in the joke itself but in seeing how far people are willing to go in order to offend. For me, there was something liberating, if not always funny, in seeing that. Comments about The Aristocrats? If so, send them to me here and be sure to mention if you saw the film. April 9, 2006 - Blessed Are the Peacemakers Comment from Garth Liebhaber - "As per your new blog, I'm not sure how I want to comment, but it's in a good way. Bicycles are some of my favorite things, and Herons are at the top. The Berrigans and other Catholic Worker peace type people are why I became a teacher, and have been photographing the antiwar movement for the last three or four years now. Anyway, I look forward to checking in more often." April 5, 2006 - What's New at Tullio's I've been getting some more new product in, and more is on the way. I've just added Nitto Noodle handlebars and Dynamic stems to the Nitto page. B17 Champion Special saddles are back in stock. You can find them (where else?) on the Brooks page. April 2, 2006 - Condoleezza Rice Talks Human Rights So, was Rice correct? Does the Universal Declaration on Human Rights apply here? Yes, according to Article 18: “Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Good call, Condi. Of course, this piqued my curiosity. What else is in this marvelous document that Ms. Rice likes so much? “Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Oops. “Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.” Oh, I’m sure that they meant to say “except enemy combatants.” “Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.” See above. “Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” Ditto. “Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” Oh, I know what you are thinking: these enemy combatants aren’t being held on criminal charges. Yet, they aren’t prisoners of war. Hmmm. Somehow, they seem to fall between the cracks. Yet, Article 8 says that everyone has a right to tribunal. Maybe Condi can help me out here. Enough about detainees. What else does it say? “Article 23 (2): Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.” Sorry, ladies. Still working on that one. “Article 25 (1)” Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” Wow. Sounds like socialism. Gotta work on this one, especially the medical care part. “Article 26 (1): Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.” Is higher education equally accessible if a large number of people can’t afford it? As Ms. Rice put it herself, “the United States stands forthrightly for principles of freedom of worship, freedom of expression, and that these are bedrock principles of democracy around the world, these are principles that are enshrined in the Afghan constitution and they're principles that are enshrined in the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights.” Maybe Ms. Rice can encourage some of the leaders here at home to put these words into action. What do you think? Send me your comments. March 29, 2006 - What Makes a Good Bike? I have a different perspective when riding a bike. I don't think about the parts at all. I think about the ride: the smells, the sights, the meditative rhythm of the pedals. The best thing that the bike can do is avoid creating a distraction from the ride. The bike should disappear beneath me. It needs to be both comfortable and durable. Quiet is good, too. These requirements will say something about the nature of the bicycle. A WalMart special would not qualify, but a $10K custom wonderbike is not necessary. Oh, the wonderbike would be great to build and to talk about with other riders, but it wouldn't necessarily make the ride any better. In fact, I might worry a bit about potential damage or theft. I do think that the bike should look good. Not flashy, but pleasing. When I stop for a rest, it's nice to look over at my bike and see it as an old friend. Of course, this gets into highly subjective territory, and if your idea of a good-looking bike is different than mine, that's perfectly OK. I'm a believer in simplicity so I don't go for things that are fancy for the sake of being fancy. Form should follow function for me, but I understand folks having different preferences. Not surprisingly, my definition of a "good bike" comes close to the Herons that I ride all the time. I try to make them comfortable, durable, and aesthetically-pleasing (at least to me). The components I use are good, but I usually don't go for the top of the line stuff. Of course, I am a sucker for Phil Wood so forgive me that one indulgence. I want to be able to hop on one of my bikes and ride it anywhere without worrying about what might break along the way. No distractions. So what make a "good bike" in your opinion? Send me your comments. |
| ©2006 Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery |
