i'm briefly switching gears here this morning.  since the revolution we keep yabbering about concerns both cycling _and_ the social order, issues concerning the social order are fair game.  i have been a bit distraught recently that some of our riders have been hearing stuff.  you know, just warming up before a race or what not, they ride by people and hear something like the following...

rider 1: "racing union, what's that..."

rider 2: "those are the communists"

rider 1: "the what?"

rider 2: "i don't know, the cycling communists or something like that..."

i don't expect a nuanced appreciation from everyone but i do want to be clear about a few things.  first, i don't think anyone on the team is an actual communist, in the literal sense of being a card-carrying member of the communist party.  second, it would be very difficult to characterize the individuals on the team as having any sort of common ideology.  sure, there are a few people who have unconventional political beliefs, relative to current american standards and norms, but the racing union does not at this time dictate how people should think and act.  people, in the near term, are free to go where they like, talk to whomever they choose and pursue such interests as they find appropriate.  as long as they are careful about what they say. 

so as you can see, we're all actually just a bunch of fun guys (and a gal) who like to ride bikes.  nothing to see here, nothing to worry about.  next time you see a racing union jersey, simply introduce yourself and you'll find that we can all get along.  we're nothing to be afraid of.  but if you're the kind of person who is looking for something to be afraid of, well, we've got you covered, and we're off to the second point of this morning's post. 

i'm sure that as educated and interested members of the republic, you all spat out your coffee this morning while reading this.  the short version is that a major us corporation has been funding death squads in columbia.  and that they continued to do this after their corporate counsel told them it was illegal.  though not shocking to anyone who was awake in the 1980's, this is pretty disturbing.  and though you'd think that such a blunt fact would be a great hook for a story, i experienced growing frustration as i read paragraph after paragraph that basically reduced this down to an issue of high level bureaucratic infighting between oligarchic corporate types in private industry and oligarchic corporate types who now control government.  that whole funding the death squads thing appears to be of considerably less interest and importantance than an extended essay on washington dc kremlinology.  the washington post can normally be counted on to view everything through this type of conceptual filter, but you know, death squads, well that's gotta be important too.  right?  it's not really until you get to the fourth paragraph form the end that you get some real context:

An Organization of American States report in 2003 said that Chiquita participated in smuggling thousands of arms for paramilitaries into the Northern Uraba region, using docks operated by the company to unload thousands of Central American assault rifles and ammunition

who knew that the banana trade was so rough?  actually, pretty much anyone who is paying attention because it's painfully well documented.  we could go on about the nexus between this and popular culture or politics or ngo's or business.  but the point i would like to stress is a bit different.  whatever you think about noam chompsky, he has made a very fair point over and over again: that you can't judge socialist- and communist-type governments in centeal and south america by their performance becuase they were so actively undermined by the united states**.  chompsky actually makes it even more explicit, asking non-rhetorically if the westernized carribean islands such as haiti and the dominican republic are better off than cuba.  but putting that aside, one must acknowledge that when government and corporate and social pressure are all being focused on a bogeyman, say communism, of course it won't flourish.  and of course there will be a residual social stigma associated with that as a result of the best efforts of people like senator mccarthy.

which brings us full circle to what i wrote at the beginning of the post: people referring to unionistas as commies.  americans still use the title "communist" as a pejorative.  and they do so unthinkingly.  i think that this needs to end, but i'm not hopeful when i read post articles liek the one that's there today.  we're all coming to see the hypocrisy that's involved in doping in sport and our attitudes towards it.  we need to do a bit of navel gazing on our political hypocrisy as well.

-sg

**brief aside to the "patriots" who lurk in the comments: the same unfortunate dynamic is playing out in iraq right now.  "freedom"(c)(r)(tm) is not taking hold because the place is a chaotic maelstrom of death squads.  anyone who says that the iraqis are incapable of understanding or receiving the gift of freedom is either lying on purpose or delusional.  you cannot logically advocate that the people there should be entitled to self-govern and self-determine their future,and that this requires our total support, but that the people in central and south america should not be entitled to the same privledges and support.  i generally refer to this as maliki-chavez paradox.  and it's so obviously self-evident that i will take no mail on this topic.