Monday, January 24, 2011

The Parable of the Purple Pedaler

Pam Pedaler loved to ride her purple bicycle each evening after dinner. Alan Activist didn’t like purple bicycles. “Purple bicycles should be banned from society!” he cried. “Purple bicycles are bad!”

“What’s wrong with purple bicycles?” asked Pam. “I think they’re nice.”

Alan scowled at Pam. “Purple bicycles are unpleasant to me; therefore you must be a bad person. Purple bicycles are dangerous, and should be banned.” Pam didn’t understand, but didn’t want to argue, so she just shrugged and continued riding her bike.


One day, Alan’s friend Vincent Victim was killed in a car accident. Alan’s outcry was immediate: “See, I told you purple bicycles were bad! My friend Vincent is dead because of those awful purple bicycles! Ban purple bikes! Ban purple bikes!”

Curious, Pam decided to read the accident report. There was no mention of any purple bicycle. Alan’s friend Vincent had died when a drunk driver ran a red light and smashed into his car. “But Alan,” she pointed out, “purple bicycles had nothing to do with your friend’s death. This was caused by a drunk driver.”

“It doesn’t matter!” screamed Alan. “What if it had been? What if someone else dies tomorrow because of all the purple bikes?”

“But… there’s no reason to believe that will happen.”

“Why should I listen to you, purple bike rider? After all, it could happen! All you purple bike riders, you don’t care if people die. You should give up your selfish ways and destroy your purple bicycles.”

“Why?” asked Pam Pedaler. “There’s no evidence that purple bicycles cause more accidents. In fact, studies show that purple…

“Now is the time to finally pass a law against purple bicycles.” Alan interrupted through a bullhorn. “We need a law! Outlaw purple bicycles!” Alan Activist and the rest of his friends organized rallies, and began to picket bicycle manufacturers. Newspapers and television networks covered the story as headlines.

At Vincent’s funeral, people who had never met Vincent shed crocodile tears and made speeches to the video cameras: “Vincent shall not have died in vain his death serves as a springboard for a national dialogue on the evils of purple bicycles.”

Fearful of bad PR and government intervention, the bicycle manufacturers announced that they would voluntarily cease production of purple bicycles. Not wishing to be perceived as anti-social, many owners of purple bicycles became ashamed and stopped riding them. Soon the bicycle makers and retailers realized that these people were buying new bikes as replacements, so they immediately began to lobby the federal government to seize and destroy all purple bikes in the hands of consumers.

Politicians began making speeches condemning the evils of purple bicycles. “This tragedy should serve as a constant reminder that purple bicycles are a danger to a civilized society. Today I’m introducing legislation which will make it a federal crime to own a purple bicycle.”

Pam continued to protest: “Why? There’s nothing wrong with purple bicycles. Banning them would be pointless! This accident was caused by a drunk driver. Shouldn’t we spend our energy trying to do something about the drunk drivers out there?”

Eventually, the politicians passed the law and made symbolic resolutions against purple bicycle ownership. All purple bicycles were seized and destroyed, and tax credits were given to qualified purple bike owners so they could replace the purple bikes with new green bikes.*

The President issued a proclamation that set a date for “No Purple Bike Day”, and declared it a federal holiday. As a sign of solidarity, entertainers wore “STOP THE VIOLET” ribbons to the Academy Awards show and made long acceptance speeches condemning evil purple bike riders. The whole nation watched and cheered as multiple awards were given to Michael Moore for his documentary “Purple Rage” which showed graphic footage of middle aged white men on purple bikes running down starving children and Muslim women with cancer.

Pam Pedaler turned off the television and sighed. She had stopped arguing her case. Maybe this wasn’t such a bad thing. After all, it’s only a dialogue, right? She needed a new bike anyway, and got one, courtesy of the taxpayers. New bikes were being made and sold; the economy had been stimulated and jobs had been created. Federal employees and union workers got a paid day off work. So what if the law is unconstitutional? What does it hurt? Nobody really needs a purple bicycle, right? Yes, maybe this was a good thing after all. Pam walked out into the fresh evening air, got on her shiny new green bike, and started out on her daily exercise ride. As she pulled out into the street, she was hit and killed by a drunk driver.





* In order to qualify for the tax credit, purchasers were required to submit paperwork verifying that the new green bikes were built by manufacturers that met stringent new federal bicycle-making standards, which none of the existing manufacturers could meet. Just in time, a former Vice President formed a company with a state-of-the-art new plant to produce the new green bikes. Green bikes made outside the U.S. were subject to punitive tariffs. A government bailout provided funding for a failing bicycle manufacturer to retrofit its facilities to the new standards, and the wife of an advisor to the President started a firm consulting and contracting with non-conforming manufacturers to upgrade their facilities to meet the standards.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

no, something should be done about the alcohol that's causing the drunk drivers. not the drivers themselves.
but that's not the point.

point is, guns kill people. you point a gun at someone, you better be prepared to deal with a death on your conscious. kinda funny to me how to the bat-shit crazy right wing condones the purchasing of firearms, yet continues to preach the words of a false god, making it seem that if you kill someone, it's bad. but if you have a gun and kill the person who killed someone, you're automatically not a bad guy? what a delusion! if you kill, and kill ANYBODY (doesn't matter if it's a child molester or rapist) you're a killer. doesn't matter, you're a murderer. plain and simple.

Ben Bradshaw said...

@anonymous:
Wow. Thanks for commenting on my post. I have a couple of thoughts on your response:

1. I wish you had used your name. Why would you post anonymously if you are sincere in your beliefs and not ashamed of them? Maybe you found my blog through my Facebook comments, which would indicate that you are a friend or friend of a friend and would like to express your thoughts without your acquaintances knowing what you really believe. That’s fine. You are welcome to post anonymously as long as you are civil.

2. Really? Do you really think guns and alcohol are capable of causative action? I've seen guns and liquor sit on a shelf for years and never move until someone picked them up. Using your own logic, it sounds like you are advocating stricter liquor laws. Sounds a little "right wing" to me! If we were to re-instate prohibition and confiscate all guns, would we be better off? I think people should be free to consume alcohol, Mountain Dew, and even as much salt as they want, until their use of these things harms or endangers others. Likewise, I think people should be free to own guns, knives and even forks until their use of these items harms or endangers others.

3. Just so I'm clear: you are saying that all killing is murder? You are mixing separate arguments (guns & killing) so it's hard to follow, but it sounds like you are saying killing with guns is somehow different from killing with knives, or with bare hands. Here's a question, and I'm truly interested to hear your answer: Let's say you don't own a gun. An intruder is about to kill you and your entire family. You have a knife. Do you kill him? If so, have you committed murder? Would it be any different if you used a gun?

4. My little analogy could apply to a number of things (gun control is one), but what inspired it was the attack on speech in the aftermath of the Giffords shooting. People immediately started blaming "angry rhetoric", talk show hosts, tea party supporters, Sarah Palin, etc. There was no link between the shooting and any of these things, but that didn't stop people from using that event to try to shut down free speech in the form of vigorous debate.

Despite your rather rude attack on “right wingers” and God, I’ve tried to respond in a civil manner (ironic, eh?), and would welcome further discussion.