[sic]

I knew as much, but a quick search of the Google shows me that I didn’t coin the term “indignorance,” which can best be defined by the statements of one angeleno named Graham A. Rowe in a letter to the editor he wrote to the Wall Street Journal, responding to that paper’s entirely slanted and negative August 1 article on bicycling in Los Angeles (yes, the one I had issues with). Here’s what Rowe couldn’t keep himself from saying:

Bicycle riders believe that they should enjoy all the benefits of both car drivers and pedestrians. They choose to ride both with and against traffic. They obey no traffic signs, never stop at red lights or stop signs. At a red light they decide to become a pedestrian and simply ride across the crossing. They ride on the sidewalk at danger to pedestrians. Bicycles should be required to have a fee-paid license plate and be ticketed for infractions. Maybe then they would be more careful and get more respect.

Rowe could have gone a long way to make himself look less a kneejerk idiot if he’d just started the rant with “Some,” but instead he choses to lump us all together as law-breaking, sidewalk hogging, wrongway riders hellbent with ill anarchistic intent.

BikinginLA has a far more reasoned and complete response to this myopic jerk. Me, I just try to roam around the ether looking for any whiff of background on him. And while I can’t verify if this is the same Graham A. Rowe or not, a search of the Google for that name yielded this 12-year-old nugget of FAIL from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority website (bold emphasis mine):

Individuals Barred Or Suspended
Jonathan G. Fink, (Registered Representative, Los Angeles, California) and Graham A. Rowe (Registered Principal, Los Angeles, California) submitted Offers of Settlement pursuant to which Fink was suspended from association with any NASD member in any capacity for 60 days and ordered to requalify by exam as a general securities representative. Rowe was fined $5,000, jointly and severally with a member firm, suspended from association with any NASD member as a general securities principal for 15 days, and required to requalify by exam as a general securities principal. Without admitting or denying the allegations, the respondents consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that Fink engaged in numerous purchase and sales transactions in various securities for the account of a public customer that were excessive in size or frequency in view of the financial resources and character of the account. The NASD found that Rowe failed to establish or follow adequate procedures reasonably designed to carry out the supervision of Fink to ensure compliance with applicable rules and failed to respond when confronted with various situations that indicated that the recommendations by Fink were unsuitable. The findings also stated that Rowe failed to approve promptly in writing each discretionary order entered in the discretionary account or to review such account at frequent intervals to detect and prevent the transactions

A couple posts ago I pointed a hellbent finger at a couple insurance companies with the word “Farm” in their titles who just so happened to put out near-simultaneous TV advertisements that take unnecessary pokes at bike commuters.

What I neglected to mention was that I wrote emails to State Farm and Farmers respetively taking them to task for the commercials and their underlying themes. To date I haven’t heard diddly from Farmers, but in my inbox this morning I found the following unsigned response from State Farm:

Thank you for your email regarding our advertisement that features a cyclist riding his bike to work. We have read your concerns and those of others with similar concerns. We take very seriously each letter, email and blog comment we receive.

I discussed the perception of this ad with others at State Farm, and we decided the right thing to do would be to discontinue it. We will remove this ad as quickly as possible from the current rotation schedule.

We are sorry the advertisement offended anyone. Our intention with this particular ad was to recognize and empathize with the everyday challenge of high gas prices, and suggest that State Farm could help by providing lower auto insurance rates than a person may be receiving from their current provider. But, clearly we have heard your concerns.

This change is being communicated directly to those who have corresponded with us, but I also ask that you pass this message along to others whom you know have a similar concern about this ad. Please know that State Farm is very concerned about doing what we can to improve the health, safety and environment in our communities. For example, in numerous states, employees can earn up to $1.50 a day by ridesharing, walking, or riding a bike to work. We also have more than 1,200 employees participating in van pooling throughout the country.

The satellite radio scene got bumped to a bigger blip on the radar in large part because of the announcement this week that the Justice Department’s anti-trust busters have given the proposed $4.6-billion merger of Sirius and XM corporations a hearty thumbs-up.

Chances are this doesn’t mean much to most people who receive their radiowaves terrestrially, but as a long-time Sirius subscriber I’m paying it some attention, primarily because of the rumors I’ve heard that should the merger be approved by the FCC, my current Sirius equipment might become obsolete in that I would still receive Sirius programming, but not whatever former-XM channels get ported over. In order to do that I would of course need to “upgrade” my hardware at a cha-ching of a several hundies.

Coincidentally this morning I got a call from a Sirius telemarketer looking to send me a new free radio with a 45% discounted additional subscription ($irius is $et up in $uch a way that one can’t get a new radio added to a current $ub$cription; each box need$ to have it$ own… but that’$ another topic entirely and all right I’ll stop it with the dollar signs).

I expressed my concern to the telemarketer as to buying equipment now that might be programming impaired post-merger and the representative put me on with her supervisor who assured me that would not happen, and when I asked him to provide me with something in writing, he instead directed me to siriusmerger.com where he told me the writing I sought was there in black and white.

Sort of.

Here’s what Sirius has posted:

“If our merger is approved, the combined company will offer consumers the best of each service on your current radio - at a price well below the cost of the two services today.”

Sounds good, right? On the surface yeah, but my skepticality looks at “best of each service on your current radio” and sees a position that craftily reinforces the separation of the two entities. Notice the use of “each” and the singular “service” instead of “both” and “services.” Big difference.

But wait, there’s more at the bottom of that page:

“We guarantee no radio will become obsolete. Your current radio will continue to provide you with the programming you enjoy, whether you keep your current service or change to a new subscription plan. “

Again at first glance this looks solid. But on second pass it’s basically a thinly veiled statement of the obvious that tells me Sirius radios will continue to receive Sirius programming and XM radios will continue to receive XM programming.

As a result of that cagy language and at Sirius’ invitation I utilized a form letter page on their website to send the following email to my elected officials in Washington, DC, and the FCC, with the subject line: Concerns About Hardware Obsolesence Following Sirius/XM Merger.

Honorable Senators, Representative, and the FCC:

In the guarantee posted to the Sirius website, it states:

“…that that no Sirius radio will become obsolete as a result of the merger. The two companies have millions of radios in the market, including many that are factory-installed in automobiles. After the merger, you will not need another radio to continue to receive the programming you now enjoy.”

This statement is ambiguous and frankly disingenuous in that it does not specifically address new programming. While I understand that my current Sirius hardware will continue to receive the Sirius programming I presently access, what remains unaddressed and vague is whether or not that hardware will allow me to access any new programming brought over from the former XM.

I am a long-time and mostly satisfied Sirius subscriber but since the buyout was announced  I have abstained and will continue to abstain from purchasing new hardware in this pre-merger interim. I am satisfied that existing Sirius programming will be available to me with my old radio, but I’m not going to upgrade my equipment if there’s even the slightest doubt that it will not support any new programming should the merger be completed.

Unless this is specifically addressed by Sirius I will wait out the merger before buying rather than buy now only to be forced buy again to enjoy any combined programming — which would not happen because I would cancel my subscription rather than allow myself to suffer such bait-and-switch tactics.

Sincerely,
William Campbell

For far too many Saturdays mornings the gardeners for the people next door to us have been excessive (to say the least) in their illegal (LAMC Sections 112.04 & 112.05) use of gas-powered leafblowers. This particular morning it started shortly after 9 a.m. and with a couple brief breaks (I assume because the machines ran out of gas) it continues now as we approach the hour of 11.

Marshaling my diplomatic tendencies while simultaneously quelling my urge to go on a rampage with a baseball bat, I sat down and took the first expletive-free documentational step, as follows, toward resolving this. If this doen’t work I start complaining to the proper authorities.

February 9, 2009

Dear Neighbor,

As your next door neighbors we submit this request with the utmost respect, but the situation with your groundskeepers has gotten to an untenable point that requires your immediate attention and intervention.

At some not-too-distant point, your gardening crew began doing its work on Saturday mornings. I can only assume that this unfortunate switch is the result of scheduling conflicts that prevent them from doing their work during the week.

I call it unfortunate primarily because of their extensive use of gas-powered leafblowers in violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 112.04 and 112.05 which state:

112.04: “No gas powered blower shall be used within 500 feet of a residence at anytime. Both the user of such a blower as well as the individual who contracted for the services of the user, if any, shall be subject to the requirements of and penalty provisions for this ordinance. Violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be punishable as an infraction in an amount not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), notwithstanding the graduated fines set forth in L.A.M.C. Section 11.00(m). ”

112.05 “Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., in any residential zone of the City or within 500 feet thereof, no person shall operate or cause to be operated any powered equipment or powered hand tool that produces a maximum noise level exceeding the following noise limits at a distance of 50 feet therefrom.”

This morning specifically one of your gardeners (pictured at right) began blowing leaves with a gas-powered “backpack” blower shortly after 9 a.m. and it continued unabated for more than an hour. It then stopped at 10:15 a.m. only to recommence at 10:30. It continues as I write this.

Not only is this illegal from a mechanical perspective but it is also a severe and prolonged disruption of the peace.

To be fair and honest, last Saturday when our gardeners showed up uninvited (a day after missing their regularly scheduled visit) we quickly discovered that they too use a gas-powered blower. We put a stop to it immediately and have contacted their supervisor to insist any further work be done without such offensive equipment – and never on Saturday.

Again we submit this with the utmost appreciation for the good neighbors you are and in the hope your quick action will put an end to this illegal activity. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards,

Will & Susan Campbell

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa took time out from his busy schedule endorsing Hilary Clinton for president to focus on a dire civic issue: traffic. Yesterday he arrived via a behind-schedule MTA bus to a press conference staged on a downtown bridge over the 110 Freeway and outlined a multi-faceted program designed to get traffic flowing more efficiently. He’s all about: traffic signal syncing; more aggressive ticketing and towing of intersection blockers and illegally parked vehicles; implementing one-way express corridors; public transit; and more. He even gives some love to pedestrians by championing strategic all-way crosswalks at certain key intersections.

And bikes? On that sorely ignored subject the somewhat honorable ‘Tonio Villagarockstar’s said the following (pick one):

A) “I pledge to fully integrate bicycles and other alternate forms of self-propelled transportation — as well as nonnuclear forms of teleportation, and most types of homebrew aircraft and dirigibles — into the future of transportation in Los Angeles. Not as bastard stepchildren who need to be spanked and stuck in a corner for a timeout, but as equal partnters who need to be spanked and stuck into a corner for a timeout!”

B) “Oh yeah, bikes, bicycles… las bicicletas. Las bicicletas fantásticas. Riiiiiight. Muy bueno. Those things. Hmmmm. Jeez. Pffft. Yikes. Tough one! Extremadamente difícilmente! Let me fake as if I give a shit and pretend like I’ll get back to you on that, but really won’t, ‘K?”

C) Absolutely, positively nothing.

The correct answer is C, which in a lot of ways is like B, which leaves those of us enthusiastic and trailblazing urban two-wheelers trucked out to Oversight County and dumped in the reclaimed toxic landfill that is now Bigfatzeroloservilletown. Again.

So of course I wrote him a letter:

Mr. Mayor,

I’ve read through your multi-level plan to reduce traffic congestion, and while I’m impressed that you’re attempting to tackle this pressing matter, I am as equally unimpressed that in all of the options you offer, nowhere and not even once mentioned is the bicycle or efforts that could and should be made to improve its presence on the civic gridscape.

Certainly you could debate that the percentage of bicycle commuters in Los Angeles is insignificant, but that is terrifically shortsighted and short-term oriented.

As a dedicated bike commuter I accumulated more than 3,000 miles across Los Angeles in 2007, in part due to my 26-mile roundtrips between Silver Lake and Westchester at least three times a week. In this first month of 2008 alone I have commuted by bike to work 13 out of 22 working days, which is the equivalent of keeping 13.5 gallons of gasoline out of my gas tank and available for use by you or more urgently Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega — unless he’s recently traded his Hummer in for more a more fuel-efficient and less egregious form of transportation.

But I digress. Bottom line is I am part of a growing segment of the city’s population who have made the choice to rely predominately on two-wheels to get around town, and frankly with the continued lack of a functional city-wide network of bike routes, perpetuated by your silence on the subject I feel discriminated against. You had a long-view opportunity to include bicycles and cycling infrastructure improvements in your plan and you shamefully didn’t. Don’t continue to ignore what is an important component in the future of this city’s transportation solutions.

Regards,
Will Campbell

I’m not going to do much explaining here largely because I am still too blown away to translate my feelings. In my inbox yesterday was a note with the subject line “Response To Review” that read as follows:

Dear Will Campbell . . .

I’ve just read you most interesting comments on your website, in which you remark lengthily — and delightfully — about my book, The Silent Sky. Thank you for an engrossing and very pleasurable read.

(I can only add, I wish you had scored with Mindy Fenton!)

Best regards . . .
Allan W. Eckert

I won’t go into the details here. All the background you can eat can be found at my February 2006 post that Eckert references in his note, headlined “Learning The Hard Way.” But in the meantime I can’t quite quantify what it’s like to have the author of one of the most important books (published in 1965) of my youth and my life just suddenly reach across the 25 years since I first read it and say hey.

But of course I wrote him back:

Mr. Eckert,

I do believe my eyes bugged out and I got chills when I realized I’d just gotten an email from the author of one of my favorite books ever. Thanks to the wonders of the internet I am as humbled here by your kind words as I was whenever I was in the presence of Mindy Fenton. Or at least pretty close.

And speaking of the wonders of the internet, long before the worldwide web came into being I spent years haunting public libraries for a copy of your book. I eventually found another in the library of the college I attended when I finally went back in the early 1990s to finish up my degree at 30 years of age. Then a few years ago I decided to see about getting a copy of my very own and while I can’t recall if it was facilitated by eBay or Amazon or Craigslist, I was eventually able to procur a paperback version that I display proudly in my bookcase.

Kindest regards,
Will Campbell

Allan Eckert’s website

It was brought to my attention via BoingBoing.net that a Toronto city councilman named Rob Ford had this to say about cycling and cyclists that appeared in a Toronto Star article about the city’s decay and debt:

“I can’t support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Well I stewed over that this morning, tossed a link to it up on the Midnight Ridazz website and then guess what I did next? Of course I did. Now say it with me: I wrote this Canadian neocon bastard a letter:

Mr. Ford,

My heart bleeds for you sir and your malignant opinions regarding cyclists that appeared recently in the Toronto Star. As a long-time recreational and commuter cyclist here in Los Angeles — one of the least bike-friendly places in the world — I have to share the road with many asinine vehicle operators that unfortunately share your selfish, shockingly narrow and unequivocably disgraceful point of view.

But in the midst of such a hostile environment I’m thankful that the city and state laws make it clear that a bicyclist has just as much a right to the road as any four-wheeled vehicle.

Los Angeles is a long way from being an ideal city to enjoy from the saddle of a bicycle, and indeed I’m well aware of the heightened degree of risk each time I ride. I ride carefully and cautiously but I know I’m only as safe as the most careless car driver I should happen to encounter. So for you to blame any and all cycling injuries/fatalities on the cyclists themselves, with an absolute disregard for the potentially reckless actions taken by people behind the wheels of their cars is patently idiotic.

That there are representatives such as yourself calling the shots and making policy decisions for the citizens of Toronto by spouting such shamefully alienating and polarizing statements means your fine city looks a little less fine to me now.  Here in Los Angeles, at least our elected officials are more prone to encourage alternate forms of transportation and adapt the city (however slowly) to include them rather than demean and degrade those of us that do as second-class citizens.

William Campbell
Los Angeles

This is kind of convoluted and roundabout, but on my Flickr stream I posted a blurry snap I took last Sunday of a section of the famed L.A. muralist Kent Twitchell’s L.A. Marathon mural, which was originally painted on the 405 Freeway near Century Boulevard but late last year was relocated to the 5 Freeway near Stadium Way.

Later on I was surprised to find a fellow Flickr’er named Vidalia had posted a comment to the posted image calling the mural “ugly and dated.” Now if you know me you know I’m one of those naive types who strive to seek beauty in everthing and thus I see magnificence in things like hissing cockroaches and potato bugs and some republicans and old nails and vast tracts of unspoiled desert. On top of that I have a marked aversion against what I feel is the erroneous go-to use of the word “ugly.”

Not that there isn’t any ugly out there. There’s plenty. The devastation in Beirut, the genocide in Darfur, 9/11, the horror of Iraq, the phonecam video footage of Saddam Hussein’s execution, pretty much any decision Duhbya makes or any pompous tabloid TV program such as “Access Hollywood” and “The Insider.”

So to beat the dead horse, I’m not gonna gag if you don’t like what I like. I’m just gonna do so if your default descriptive is to call something ugly. Ugly is territorial gang tags. Ugly is skinheads. Ugly is rotting meat. Ugly is unchecked greenhouse gas emissions. Ugly is a shotgun blast to the head.

Twitchell’s marathon mural certainly is not my most favorite of his vast number of murals around town… and perhaps even dated. But not ugly. And thus I commented back telling Vidalia I didn’t think so. I also said that I had a long-term appreciation of Twitchell’s works and that I was happy to see this one salvaged in the wake of so many that had been unceremoniously destroyed.

And then she came back with “how she doesn’t want to argue with me” and posts an example of a mural she considers beautiful — and it certainly was — but it was a stylized romanticized illustration that I wrote back saying comparing the two was an apples-and-oranges thing

A n y w a y. . . the point of writing about this exchange was that it got me thinking about Twitchell’s long-lost Freeway Lady who I grew up with, and his most recently lost downtown mural of the artist Ed Ruscha, and the one I discovered gone last fall, his Steve McQueen Monument painted on a structure at Union near 12th.

I first wrote about finding it painted over back in September. Afterward I contacted the L.A. Murals organiztion in an attempt to get some info as to when and why it was destroyed but got no reply.

So today after this exchange with Vidalia I googled Kent Twitchell and found his wiki page, in which I modified the now-outdated information about the location of the L.A. Marathon mural and the still-existing status of the Steve McQueen portrait. Then I found KentTwitchell.com and his email link so I decided to go straight to the source:

Dear Mr. Twitchell,

The first and only time I saw your wonderful Steve McQueen mural was in 1995 while participating in the inaugural L.A. Marathon Bike Tour whose course that year took us down Union Street where it was near 12th Street.

I’d long since mentally misplaced it as to being on Hoover, but finally in the fall of last year I went searching for it and found the location only to be dismayed that it had been painted over. I searched the internet as well as local L.A. mural resources for information as to when it might have been destroyed but could find none (in fact most maintain it still stands). So hopefully I’m not bothering you too much or bearing any previously unknown bad news in asking if you might know when and why it was obliterated and/or if it might have been protected beforehand.

Regards,
Will Campbell

Much to my surprise came his rapid response:

Will,

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I also was partial
to The Steve McQueen Monument. It was my first LA
mural, in 1971. I went back during 1980 and fixed it
up, retouching it with acrylic artists paints (it had
been originally painted with cheap enamel oil based)
and it would have lasted for many years. The original
people in the house sold it to some people from Korea.
They did not know they were supposed to contact me
before painting it out. Someone would have been able
to explain the situation to them had we known. I think
it was during the mid ’90s. It did not have the
protective coatings over it that I use now. I painted
gloss medium & varnish all my murals until recently.
It does allow removal of overpaint but it would
possibly be easier to repaint than to remove the
overpaint on that one since it was not nearly as
detailed as my subsequent murals.

There was a great character actor with your name
during the 50s. I actually still have a photo of him.
He was in Elvis’ first movie and a LOT of other
movies. One of the best.

Anyway, thanks for your interest. I wish I had better
news.

Kent