Weekend Rant
11.22.2009

Well, it's a long weekend and I'm a day late getting the weekend rant posted. Sue me. Hehe. There are just about too many things to bitch about whilst commuting in Neo-Portland these days, and you've come to the right place to get it off your chest. Let's start it off with my obligatory rant.

Apparently, if you're poor in America, most especially in Portland, and you would care to have your first professional job, or in anyway attempt to elevate your fiscal circumstances, you'd best not count on having a car to do it with. Add to this the politicization of using a bicycle for transportation, and prospective employers are offered yet another reason, besides fearing you won't arrive at work on time, and not smelling like a gym-locker, to discriminate against me when hiring. I carry the Church of Green flag emblazoned upon my forehead whether I buy their shit or not. Not that employers ever discriminate along political lines, no, that never happens at all.

Oh, that isn't my only rant this week. Surprised? Yeah. I want to rant about my fellow bloggers in the area. How many comments have you left on my blog Jonathan, Elly, Mia, Joseph, etc.?? How about you BoJack? I'm noticing as I do this an apparent egotism, or competitiveness, amongst area bloggers. I, for one, am tired of leaving endless reams of thoughtful, if not always invited, comments on blogs, only to suffer in obscurity myself.

When Maus and Rose go home to their partners and bitch about that crazy fucking Vance guy, I wonder if it has occurred to either one of them that they've not set an E-foot in my blog during the nearly 4 years it has existed? Now, and I've mentioned this to Maus, I comment a lot on his blog and almost always upon what are contentious issues. However, one can't help but notice that any comment thread I've participated in is about a mile and a half longer than anything else he posts. Again, chock this up to the nature of contentious debate, but how much, and how long, before I can at least be pissed the arrogant bastards won't even allot me a page-view?

I comment religously on these folks' blogs, but narry a return hit? Why? Never mind the inherent cowardice in preaching to the choir, what about a little brotherly fucking love, guys? Don't I even get to be brave? I'm at your party, getting drunk and yucking it up, I can't have the return favor? Is it content? I mean, some of you write some pretty cruddy crud, and it's a subjective thing at that. What are you so afraid of? Allow me. You are afraid of commenting on my blog because you are erroneously convinced that doing so will somehow lend credibility to my ranting.

If true, isn't that like base arrogance, and egotism? Am I so bad that I don't even warrant a friendly nod? Have any of you, ever, offered to interview me, or collaborate with me, or in any way try to help me out? Have I dedicated hours upon hours of my own personal time to commenting, let's face it the reason most of us do it, on you all's blogs? Well okay then. Put that in your pipe the next time you are reeling from one of my psychotic onslaughts.

You all talk bikes. I ride one. You all preach the Church of Green gospel and I'd put my teensie-tinsie carbon-footprint up against any one of yours, any day. I live the example, and until you all started fucking with me, I just rode my bike and kept my mouth shut. See, I'm thinking that after watching me ride by you in your car, time after time, as an uninitiated motorist-cum-bicycle rider you'd eventually ask yourself, "Hey, that guy is onto something, isn't he?" I've put countless people on bikes over the years, and I did it by setting the example. I did it by taking time out of my days to accompany sketchy riders as they enter the fracas. I did it by keeping their ill-chosen steeds running in spite of the fact they were junk. I did it in every way by showing that if I can do it, so can you.

So I start a blog. Do you think I'd get shit for 25 years worth of thoughtful bike advocacy? Nope, I get laughed at and ridiculed, and my best interests are being sacrificed on the alter of the newcomer. Well, it pisses me off and it hurts my feelings. I'm doing a brave thing you sons-a-bitches. You keep preaching to your choirs and I'll keep showing up uninvited. You take your mediocre talent, combine it with your pretty-people network and daddy degrees, and I'll keep pedaling my bike in the rain. And oh yeah, I'll keep indoctrinating dozens of riders a year by being balls out hardcore, genuine, earnest, and in every way ten times the citizen you all are.

at 11:19 AM 2 comments Links to this post

Labels: , ,

It's Too Late BTA! You Done Stepped In It Now!
11.20.2009

You know, I do what I do because I ride a bicycle Portland, OR. Many seem convinced that I'm somehow defacto support for big-oil, or that I'm not environmentally conscious. To you I say this: My so-called carbon-footprint is smaller than yours. I consume the minimum required to sustain human life, barely. I haven't had a car titled in my name in over two-decades. I'm a registered Democrat, and have voted the liberal side of every issue that has arisen in my voting life.

I have thus far only voiced opinions, and tried to engage the opposition in debate. However, the unrelenting mendacity of this opposition, the lies they tell, the truth they spin, the bald-faced hypocrisy and classist-inspired ignorance, is just getting to be too much. I'm getting angry now. How dare you, how dare you even speculate what I, a free American man, do with my freedom? How dare you?!

So, all of the hullabaloo here on my site seems directly aimed at issues concerning the use of personal-automotive transportation and the preservation of the freedom to use one. Nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the 'why'. I do what I do, because these same self-righteous assholes are killing bicycle-riding in Portland as fast as they are anything else. I live in the downtown core and my bicycle trip-times have grown, not incrementally, but exponentially, ever since the Bicycle Transportation Alliance and their cohorts started, "helping me". Not only that, but the combining of bicycle-riding and the environmentalist movement has created a situation where those whom say they speak for me as a bicycle-rider, whether I like it or not, also support anti-cycling fads like light-rail, and bicycle-specific infrastructure.

When are you going to wake up? Can't you see that a dedicated bicycle-lane, or bicycle-track, or any of that other horse-shit, is just a bicycle-ban from the highway? That's people who self-identify as bicycle-riders arrogantly proclaiming that they speak for you, and that they alone can protect your interests as bicycle-rider. I've said it repeatedly here, and everywhere I E-go. These people will not be satisfied until bicycles, every bicycle, is obediently maneuvered through hordes of pedestrians, and novice bicycle-riders.

These people are using your bicycle as a tool to manifest their agenda. That agenda comes from a life-time in the sea-of-waste known world-wide as, Southern California. If you grew up in that hell-hole, no wonder you ain't a big fan-o-the-car. No fucking wonder. News-flash you nuts, you ain't in Southern California anymore. Believe it or not, we don't even really care what your experiences were in whatever pile of human-waste you came from. You're in Portland now, and here we ride bikes the law be damned, the weather be damned, and your Subaru-fucking-wagon be damned.

So, it's been like Christmas-time here at Zero Times Any Number, this week. Scott Tricker got canned from the Bicycle Fuck Shit Up Alliance. Tootles you vapid, Ken-Doll wannabe fool. Peace-out! Thanks for playin'! I think I have the whole program there, figured out. See, the BTA has been shrinking faster than an overweight Vegan, lately. They also went, basically, 0 for 3 in Salem last session. Plus, they fried their base messing up the CRC thing. Now, add to that that some bicycle-riders are wising-up to what I've been saying all along. Commingling bicycle transportation issues with other issues is categorically, historically, uber-bad for any bicycle rider.

I can almost hear the banter during the morning four-bones-a-pop-Chai Latte meetings at the BTA. They're saying, man look at how the public feels about Bricker. They're saying man, look at how we goofed up our position on the Columbia River Crossing. They're saying, man look how much steam Zero Times Any Number is building up (Well, not really but I can have my little fantasy, can't I?). Plus, they went afoul of the local pedestrian groups too. In those meetings I imagine that they talk about their incredible power, and how awesome they all are. But, one only needs look at the record, and it's plain to see momentum has been lost. Or, at least that's what I think, they think.

So, motivated by the useful cliche, "Strike while the irons are hot.", they probably feel like they better institute some changes while they still can, for purposes of maintaining their momentum, and super-awsome power and authority. Only wait just a minute. See, this thinking implies that they feel they are losing momentum; and subsequently feel an urgency, a specific importance, in maintaining that momentum. Only thing is, that momentum got lost for a reason. Implicit in this statement then is that they have momentum to save. Wrong. The BTA didn't just lose momentum, they've been marginalized. They went on a drunk-with-power binge and alienated their own damn support. They're busily firing the likes of Tricker with the hope they might maintain a momentum that isn't even there anymore. Talk about getting fired for no good reason. That's like Hitler firing Hienrich Himmler in hopes of winning the war.

Now comes the split. BikePortland.org were recently discussing what essentially amounts to a re-branding of the BTA, and it's advocacy. That's a capitulation any way you slice it, but the delusion they are somehow still relevant clings. It's an awesome thing to behold, for me, because I know precisely where a bunch of hasty decisions, and an out-of-control ego, can lead. Marginalized-ville, population 3,500 dues paying idiots. They're fixing to ditch the whole, "pro", anything approach, and are just going to go straight anti-car. Mark my words. Oh, they'll pretty-it-up a bunch with the word, "human", and talk about improving the neighborhoods they live in. You know, the ones where they ran out a bunch of working-class blacks at the point of a Portland Police bean-bag gun.

When you set about curtailing the use of some ones' private property it's a sticky-wicket, to say the least. If you would impede auto-traffic for the purpose of, "encouraging", the disuse of a personal automobile you also effect other areas of transportation. Impediment causes collateral damage to the system. While throwing speed bumps everywhere, blocking traffic arterioles with curb-extensions and planters, placing cross-walks that don't get used on densely traveled boulevards and higher-speed traffic-treatments, you certainly do make driving a car more difficult, and more expensive. However, there is an ancillary, or collateral effect that is ignored, or worse yet, considered a small price to pay; and that's that all these little annoyances meant to dissuade YOU from driving also increase the expense of commercial transportation. In this, we are all together. These people are so blind, and so uncaring of, the plight of the poor in America, that they'll gladly, ecstatically, drive the retail-price-index through the roof, just to get at your car; and your personal freedom.

That's the common thread amongst most of us not on-board with the BTA, PBOT, and their private-sector cohorts. And this isn't the only adverse effect on the poor their policies will inflict. The use of excise taxing to curtail the use of a personal automobile will price said vehicle usage into the stratosphere - simultaneously making a personal automobile inaccessible to an ever-increasing number of poor; but also this will further cement the automobile into it's societal role as a status symbol. Good work guys. Systematically price poor people out of a personal automobile only to ensure that it becomes that much more critical as a tool of class-acesnsion.

Well, I've been screaming bloody-murder and pretty much nothing else. I hate the idea of speaking for anyone. But I think the time has come to get serious about organizing a group dedicated to policing the actions of non-profit citizen groups. These people are abusing a freedom, no a right, that we all have, and in so doing are setting up a small-republic right on the steps of City Hall. This simply can't stand. We need to team-up. I know it sucks, but it has to happen. Since I'm apparently the only one with a loud voice in opposition, that means you might have to deal with me. At least until we can come up with some leadership, that is. Put aside your distaste of participating in anything that may benefit me, and think for a second. I don't want anything to do with what I'm proposing, but I'll hang until we put something together.

This group should be a bicycle-rider group only. No peds, no cars, no Church of Green. Bikes only, and always. The Church of Green is as much a threat to your ability to ride your bicycle unmolested, as they are to driving your car. Now they want to move even further away from the needs, and desires, of real bicycle-riders, and will call upon you to help them do it. Outrageous. This real-bicycle rider group will act to ensure that so-called pro-bicycle policy and planning is indeed good for bicycles; and not just another anti-car junta in lycra. This group should be dedicated to the notion that bicycles are no different than the shoes on your feet; and just as horrific to try and regulate. We need to plan civil disobedience and talk about a concerted effort to go to court and argue that you were walking your bicycle when, "that", happened - even if you weren't. We need a continued effort to hold pedestrians accountable for their behavior in traffic. Especially around bicycles.

How 'bout it folks? Anybody wanna join me? What about the emo/fixe crowd, you guys tired of getting no love from the, "establishment", bike-community? What about the Store-Brand crowd, and other poor-folk? I strongly believe that requiring anything be mounted to a bicycle is a violation of the Federal Constitution. Even, and especially really, lights. It's no different than telling me what clothes I may or may not wear in low-visiblity situations. It's a direct, and incontrovertible violation of the 4th amendment. Plain and frickin' simple. You cannot, will not, regulate human powered anything. At the very least, this anti-car hysteria, this high-school kid fad, this ridiculously callous selling out of our lifestyle, simply must be stopped. Are you with me? I have an email link right there. If you would, but can't stand the idea that I'll somehow benefit, suggest something to me that I may do to win you over. What do you want to see me change, so that you hate a little less? Whatever it is, I've got a ton of momentum built up here, and I'm raring to go. I need more lawyers, some fund-raisers, and more bodies to do the foot work. I've done a lot of work already laying the foundation and I can't do much more than continue to rant; and further marginalize my damn self.

Enough of this crap already. It's time for real bicycle riders, not the part-timers from outta town, to set the pace.

at 11:29 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , ,

Anonymous (FLW) Wins the Coveted Zero Times Any Number - Best Commenter of the Year Award!
11.19.2009

Hi Vance!

I have been discussing things with you here as "Anonymous" but since some people have been posting mean things as "Anonymous" lately, I decided to go ahead and use some initials. :)

Anyway - I wanted to get your thoughts on a couple of things.

1) You refer alot to the "church of the green". Does that mean that you aren't concerned about the environment, or that you don't like the way BikePortland presents their concern about the environment?

2) If you are concerned about the environment, can you explain to me why most people on bikeportland don't seem to understand that there are MANY other ways to reduce your carbon footprint? I made a decision several years ago that I wanted to significantly reduce my carbon footprint. So I stopped eating meat and bought a house when the time was right relatively close in. My husband and I carpool to work (I have many reasons for still continuing to drive). But bikeportland would still have you believe I am the devil because I choose to reduce my carbon footprint in a different way than they do. What's up with that!?

Why are they so concerned with one type of mistreatment to the environment instead of seeing the big picture?...The rest can be read in comments here.
The Church of Green is an easy one, and is a good place to start anyway. I wrote a rather fractured and rambling rant called, "Down with the Church of Green", and am quite embarrassed of it, alas. I also wrote this other one, "Eff the Church of Green", which is a little more cogent, but hardly definitive. So yeah, I'm still working this one out a bit, and I'm glad you brought it up.

You see, it's important to understand that I'm an atheist. I also rebuke the entire concept of Philosophy on essentially the same grounds. I'm frequently characterized as both an Existentialist, and a Nihilist. I really resent this as most of my conclusions are independently arrived at, and incrementally different from these examples. Having been indoctrinated into a fairly extreme form of the Christian cult, at a very young age, I'm also a bit of a theology buff. So my world-view is that of a person who possess little more than disdain, and pity, for the faithful; and as such, I'm fairly expert at critiquing religious behavior in people. In fact, I'm quite sensitive to it.

I'm convinced religious ceremony, and experience, can excite the limbic-brain. Much the same as laughter, or crying, or sexual ecstasy, is readily, and easily, recognizable for obvious reasons, I discern a similarly recognizable behavior among the faithful. It's every bit as obvious, and as recognizable as any of these more common references I've made. To me at least. When I debate the BikePortland crowd, and their ilk, religious zealotry fairly smacks. Add to that they profess a belief in a thing that I neither believe in myself, nor that can even be proven to exist, one way or an other; and viola - The Church of Green.

Now, I use this phrase as a pejorative, and my explanation here is meant only to explain where I got the idea for the phrase. I mean for it to be insulting to those whom the proverbial shoe fits. Of course, where the pejorative nature of this turn of phrase is literally applicable, well then I'd say I'm fairly insightful to notice. Additionally observe, if you will, that in our modern society the practice of religion has become downright unfashionable within certain circles. Namely, modern Democrats and liberals. Atheism, and agnosticism, are commonly associated with a contemporary liberal education. I think that this element's aversion to organized religion stems from their perception of the Evangelical Right, and the Neo-conservative movement.

There's something visceral, and primal about getting all juiced-up with your family, and a group of peers, and engaging in drum-banging around the village pyre. There's historical precedent. Only hold-up, it ain't so kool and urbane-like to attend just a plain old church, these days. That congregation doesn't have much to offer urban-liberals and still less, the sacred cause of Mother Earth. What to do, what to do? I know, let's just start another church, only instead of some fantastic Magic-Jew-Fairy-King-In-The-Sky, let's go with an equally unsupportable, therefore irrefutable - let us not forget, Neo-God; and call Her, 'The Environment'.

It's as plain to me as the nose on my face. Civic politics has become the Granola Chomper's new religion. They get all the benefit of bullying around their faithless neighbors, just like religious-fanatics. They get unqualified, unconditional, acceptance into the loving arms of the 'group' - the price of admission being nothing more than obeisance, and deference to the ascribed delusion. When has mankind ever produced a more perfectly functioning mechanism for empowering the fucking idiots of the world, than to form-up some dogmatic religion?

There is dogma, you know? I saw, just today (Thursday Nov, 19th '09), a certain area bicycling blogger state that Oregon gets 34% of it's carbon-dioxide emissions from transportation. Well, how in the hell do they know that? You look at the methodology, and you'll see a bunch of completely anecdotal-evidence, conjecture, consensus-blindness, and a laundry list of fallible, let's face it amateurish, bullshit. Just pure bullshit. If there is, for instance, a 34% presence/increase of carbon in Oregon's air, how do you know it came from a car; and not a truck, or an Army tank, or an airplane, or that it is there because we've cut down 75% of the trees on the planet, hello!?

It's all right there. BikePortland, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, and their ilk have dreamed-up an imaginary problem so they could form their little church; and enjoy the benefits I listed above. Then, when they set about proselytizing, and forcefully converting the non-believers, dogma comes in very handy. So, just like Scientology, and many neo-quasi-religions of the day, they respond with so-called, "Studies", and, "Surveys", and all manner of writing their irrational, often hysterical, mythical-fantasies into dogma. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, Anonymous, FLW, Bwoobie, it's a fuckin' duck!

Now let's look at your question #2. The answer I would give you to that, and not necessarily the right one you understand, is the same one which answers the question as to why religious sects end up in conflict with other belief-systems, and non-believers, alike. Go against their dogma, and their Preachers, and their way of handling snakes, and you ain't with the whole juiced-up-and-ready-for-rapture part of the program. When you desire things that the Church does not provide, you are meant to adjust your desires, dear reader. Above all, you must never, never, never, upset unanimous support. It's hard enough growing a congregation of faithful mental-midgets, without people like you and me out here speaking the truth; and observing reality.

Cleaning up the way we implement and deploy road-surfaces is necessary. Clean fuel for personal-automobiles, and commercial transportation is necessary. Slowing the burn-rate of natural resources is necessary. But all of these ideas simply ignore the fact that there is a nation the size of Brazil born every month, here on Earth. It's over, as far as I'm concerned. It's centuries late to address this. Way better to protect the status-quo, and start building a society that accepts the fact that we will be lucky to maintain a way to keep bees alive; and to become curators of nature, rather than her savior. Regardless of what you may think of that notion, the fact remains, that alternatives, as you've noticed yourself, are simply not part of the program.

This is where I shed some light on more Church of Green dogma. So-called, "Urban Livability", is key to this dogma. They don't want clean cars, they want no cars. They don't want responsible use, they want no use. This is so incredibly intertwined with religious-zealotry, and socioeconomic class-dynamics, that the fools actually believe they're onto something, and that you and I need saved from ourselves. Never-mind this policy will put a new Cadillac in the Preacher's driveway, we're not supposed to be noticing that. You ask why they view your contribution to the Church as not enough, when the answer is right in front of your spiritual face. When, historically, has any Church ever felt they have received enough tithing?

I can only speculate about the fervor with which this bullshit bike-frastructure gets laid down. It's validating. It serves to facilitate a, "Strike while the irons are hot.", kind of momentum so important to any religious movement. But there is an overarching theme to the pattern, and the Church of Green zealots are totally blind to it. What do Jonathan Maus, Scott Bricker, Roger Geller, Greg Raisman, Michelle Poyourow, Jospeh Rose, the list goes on, what do all these people have in common? Yup. They make more money, the more bikes they put on the road. The more the congregation grows, so to the tithe.

You see, you are busy trying to effect the environment in a positive way. You have done work to become educated about what you may do to help, evaluated and weighed-out some choices, and took action. That's not what the Church says to do. You're supposed to do it their way, and you better believe that as long as a financial motivator exists for them to indoctrinate you, you will be kept outside of the Church until you adopt their dogma, and toe the party line. Quit making any sense, whatsoever, then comment at BikePortland and watch the glowing, seething, reception you get from her clergy, and her zealots.

You sort of seem to ask, "What do we do about it?". That's a tough one. I'm inclined to keep feeding them rope, at this point. I've never seen 3500 people ostracize themselves from a community so fast in my entire life. The BTA just fired Scotty Tricker, and have spun it like this is to keep up with the pace of change. Nothing could be any further from the truth because the BTA has been virtually marginalized for a year and a half, and the congregation is shrinking faster than it grew. The Church of Green has had their collective ass handed to them all frickin' year, and changes in clergy are being made in hopes of re-gathering some momentum.

Thanks Anonymous FLW, I couldn't have asked for a better participant. Your thoughtful comments, and I didn't forget your others, have been just the type I'm personally looking for. Clearly you and I would find lots and lots of reasons not to hang out and be buddies. Yet, here you are airing your thoughts, asking questions, and giving me my chance. That's all I've ever asked of any one who has a problem with me, and my ideas. I really, really, like Jonathan Maus, and I've come to understand that there is a marked distinction to be made between him as an Editor of a popular Web-log, and him as a man and a person. He makes his living off of bikes. It is in his best interest to get more people to ride bikes. Because of this Mr. Maus enters into collusion with operators I despise. IMO, he's busily trying to make a deal with the devil, rather than to run like hell, and bang his own drum. If my perception is accurate is it any wonder then, why he would suffer a bunch of Enviro-Nazis on his blog; and why sensible, pragmatic, rational people feel alienated?

at 10:32 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , , , , ,

Moving Right Along - How 'Bout A Weekend Rant?
11.14.2009

BikePortland.org slows down quite a bit on the weekends. It only takes a visit to figure out that this is, at least in part, by design. Alas, my misplaced rage, ire-inducing sanctimony, arrogant diatribes, and nothing short of a massive messiah complex, winds-up being corked into what is, most assuredly, an unhealthy fashion; then only to be spilled out upon the return of the working week, leaving me setting at my desk, spluttering incoherently at nothing for 48 hours every week.

We can't have that. This won't stand. Add to that the syrupy, smarmy, smug, contrite, classist, and insufferably upbeat milieu curated by the hopelessly faithful there makes me want to have a shower after visiting the, "Weekend Open Thread", Saturday morning. Blech. It seems to me, that by the end of my work-week, I'm fit to be tied. I don't want to go somewhere for E-Hugs, soy-cocoa in hemp cups, and a fabulously sensitive round of, "My how fucking kool am I?". Eff that shit.

What we need is a weekend rant. 20, 30 Tri-Met trips in five days can leave one with a decidedly pressing yen to scream bloody-murder about it. Drowning in the idiocy of thousands of noobs on two-wheels takes it toll. I wish I could go on a bike-ride, but between the efforts of the City of Portland et al, organic brain-chemistry, a petulant streak, and a 200 calorie a day diet, methinks bike-hospital-trip is much more likely. Oh yeah, and no chamois, no cleats, outta Tri-Flow, and I'm do a complete on the Steed. Sigh.

I want to hit something. I don't want to go read the play-by-play of all the neat shit a bunch of healthy, pretty, popular, affluent, new-comers are doing on the roads I used to be able to ride-on too. I wanna cap-off a few rounds at Roger Geller, or Scott Bricker, and delightedly fantasize about a Portland sans the influence of the hopelessly egotistical, helpless little mamma's boyz running bikes in P-Twon right now. I want to ride out to Corbett and back without suffering the assaults from drivers who are pissed-off at same said asswipes, and wouldn't you know, I'll be arm-wrestling them too, all the way to Sandy.

What's your beef? Did you Friend me on FaceBook just to raise that stat on your account? IRL, secretly, WTFEver, do you despise me, and that's why my messages go unanswered, my Wall unvisited? If so, you're just exactly the asshole I'm looking for, and you owe it to both of us to air your gripe. Did you get broad-sided in a comment thread? Are you a Christian Cultist, and my atheist ranting alienated you in some way?

See folks, the thing is, and some of you are coming around, I don't judge. Rather, I don't consider personal judgments, when judging some one. I'm comfortable if you exhibit stereotypical behavior, or are yourself canonical in some distasteful way. Your foibles don't bother me. The reason for this is that I am a big-bag-o malfunctioning parts myself, and it is my hope that I can trade you straight across for some fucking benefit of the doubt.

See how easy it is? That's my first weekend rant. Say some shit mofos. If I'm so sucky, surely it should be a matter of quickly illustrating why, no? If your self-righteousness is bonafide, certainly you can impart a beat-down, no? I've pretty much had it. The funny thing is, once you get to know me, about the last thing you want to do is run your mouth to my face. So see, I've given your honor a break, and laid out before you the path with which you may, at least, retain your dignity.

at 9:06 AM 3 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Not So Fast Aaron Tarfman - I Still Need An Ass Kicking
11.12.2009

I woke up this morning to some pretty unsettling posts to the BikePortland.org Twitter-feed. Aaron Tarfman, a young fella whom I do not know, nor ever heard of, has left a fairly alarming, "departing", letter on his own website recently. One only has to read the bottom portion of the top-page at his website to become immediately concerned for this young man's physical safety.

Mr. Tarfman professes a belief that he does not matter in this world, and goes on to describe an extreme, almost hysterical, fear of global climate change. He outlines a youth characterized by routine, "beatings", and feelings of isolation brought about, in his words, by his self-described ineptitude and inability to form relationships. Later he reveals an ongoing problem with the women in his life, and shares that he's been celibate for 5 years. He complains that he has no skill-set, and that every endeavor he embarks upon ends in catastrophe, or is underwhelming to the point of ineffectual.

The clear and cogent ensconcing theme of this Departing Letter is a deep concern for mankind's indifference towards our climate predicament. But I also see a young man struggling with conditions many, if not all, of us can at least empathize with.

Well Aaron, I gotta tell you buddy. I'm probably about your most hated enemy on this Earth. I'm an unforgiving pragmatist with a wide, and long, sadistic streak. My own child-hood, a nightmare completely outside the scope of ordinary people, even Mr. Tarfman, left me wounded as well. Only I'm not so lucky as to have internalized, no. I apparently prefer to inflict my misery on others, so that they may know better how I feel.

Should you read this, young fella, after reading your departing letter this morning, I am affected. I have been effected. On your website, you say you can't do this, no matter how hard you try. Well, uh, you just did, and it occurs to me that you weren't even trying to. So, how ineffectual are you if you can turn somebody's, a stranger no less, personal philosophy on it's ear?

I'd like to humiliate myself now, for you. I have been sans 'contact' with women since 1998. That's 11 years holmes! If you think a man chooses this willfully, you're high. If you think that you are the only one, then you just ain't paying attention. First, do not define your life as a man, through women, and their approval. Secondly, realize that as we integrate open same-sex relationships into our fold, there will be some casualties. Please realize that as we extend the freedoms of others, that we may have to sacrifice some of our own.

Intimate relationships are a giant-sized pain in everybody's ass right now. Many get the shit kicked out of them before there is anything they can even do about it. Above all, going AWOL on your commitment to the environment will only hasten it's demise. Should you happen to read this, please at least know that one person whom maintains an opposing world-view to your own, is interested in hearing more of what you have to say.

I have many, many friends in this world, and I am about the biggest dick I know. People are good holmes, I'm living proof of that. A world that can tolerate Vance Longwell most assuredly has a place in it for you my stranger-friend; and it will be less without you. Please come back to us if you can. If not, you abandon unfinished business with, at least, lil' 'ol moi. And I'm hardly nothing.

at 7:08 AM 11 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , ,

Pondering the Use of Human Beings as Traffic Calming Features
11.10.2009

Get the flash player here: http://www.adobe.com/flashplayer


All the talk about the cross-walk at SE 80th, and SE Foster has me thinking. It has me thinking about how the city-mentality works when it comes to the goal of so-called, "Traffic Calming.". It has me thinking about the engineering no-no of introducing or otherwise interjecting complexity into infrastructure treatments, and facilities. It has me thinking about the short-sighted, inherently stupid, policy of trying to simultaneously address transportation, and social-philosophy.

The Nanny State would have us believe we have too much freedom. They would curtail this freedom, and have set about to do just that. As such, this ancillary agenda is often acting as a barrier between our public-safety and effective transportation. Where would we be now if the imperative to move the most people possible, with the most safety possible, had been left unmolested? Where would we be if we could work towards those goals without the additional consideration of the Church of Green, and The Nanny State, and their needs?

I ride up and down the South Park Blocks daily. I live south of the Slave-away downtown, therefore it is my grocery-shopping destination. Since the Park Blocks are, well, a park, it is filled with people. Imagine that. Which every good urban cyclist knows, are the enemy. Beings as enemy combatants don't mix well, I reserve my north/south town-traveling for SW 10th, and 11th. Only wait, some people who've barely ridden a bike downtown are designing the infrastructure, so 10th and 11th are now choo-choo trains for the Europe-Worshipping Liberal Elitists.

Thank goodness for 4th avenue, eh? But wait, if you live south of College or Jackson, you can't use 4th anymore either. Why? Choo-choo trains. Kool, so all that time I've been saying that the Church of Green won't stop until we are all dutifully walking our bikes along with the rest of the HP-Traffic, I guess I was fucking right, huh?

Which is now about one's only option. If a 25 year vehicular cycling master is telling you not to ride on streets with imbedded train-tracks, what else am I saying? Yeah, I'm implying that to do so makes it only a matter of time until you biff it. Any biker down here, with any time in, will tell you the same thing. Don't ride on train-tracks. So the city that loves to bike has forced all northbound cycling traffic off of the afore mentioned bike arterioles, and basically into the Park Blocks. Where, of course, it's technically against the law to ride a bike. I'm left to conclude the original goal is to curtail bike traffic, along with motorist traffic, so that the Pink Collar Brigade (No shit the 201's work-force is almost 80% female.) may waddle to work without spilling their 800 calorie Venti Starbuck's Carmel Machtiado.

Oh I meant - to protect vulnerable highway users. Everybody knows the only entitlement any human enters into is that of driving a personal vehicle.

So, all their bullshit later, I'm using SW 9th most times for the return-leg of my grocery trips. Doing this I run the SW Market, and SW 9th intersection daily. I've observed that there is a crosswalk here meant to connect the sidewalks which frame the Park Blocks east to west. That puts it several yards east of the actual intersection, and a dozen or more from the imaginary plane an automobile must stop behind; in order to comply with Oregon law that requires the stop if a pedestrian is present in the crossing.

In practice, the intermittent presence of peds at this intersection combines with a steady stream of commuters coming off of I-405, and is cooking up a pedestrian fatality. It's a beautiful combo. A predominately female campus meets a predominantly female commuter stream. Hilarity, and terror, ensue. And it is all compliance issues, and nothing, really, to do with infrastructure.

See, motorists don't stop behind the intersection, where they're supposed to. They stop in it, relative to the plane of the cross-walk, and not that of the intersection. (Looking at Pic #IV in the set shows a motorist in motion, but in the offending spot I allude to here.) The peds have a crosswalk, and once they're physically in it then the onus shifts to highway users. However, prior to entry a pedestrian carries the responsibility of entering the cross-walk in a safe manner. This is outlined both in Oregon Revised Statute, and City Code. This never happens as peds crossing this street rarely, if ever, stop before doing so. The fact this intersection services a choo-choo train that quite literally connects a bunch of empty condos to failing boutique-retail, only serves to exacerbate this as noobs dash for the train to nowhere, thinking it goes somewhere.

When both break their respective rule, this intersection turns into controlled chaos, and it is only a matter of time.

Time for what? This surface street already backs up motorist traffic onto I-405. It's so far over-capacity, as all downtown streets are, a signal here could easily back I-405 up into Beaverton. When this was brought up during planning I can almost hear Raisman, Geller, and the rest of the Nanny State saying, "Fine, maybe they'll buy a bike.".

And there you have it. The drive to strip free Americans of their personal liberty has gone so far that the Church of Green, and the Nanny State seem to see fit, using human beings as speed-bumps; and our freedoms as toilet paper. Yeah. Sign me up. Who doesn't love these fascist assholes?

at 1:40 PM 1 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , , ,

Recent Cyclist Fatality by U of P
11.04.2009

It's all there in the coverage, but nobody is putting it all in one spot. I've been following this story all morning, and I think I have the gist of what happened.

Two motorists, and a deceased cyclist. A near as I can tell here's how it goes:

Guy riding his bike late at night. Get's mugged. After the mugging is left in the street, tangled in his bike. Two drunk motorists, probably expecting everything but a guy tangled in a bike and laying in the road, struck and killed the biker.

Helmet? Irrelevant
Bicycle? Irrelevant
Lights? Irrelevant
Cars? Irrelevant
Infrastructure? Irrelevant
DUII? Irrelevant

Comments on the various coverage has been all over the infrastructure, and cars-suck angle, and in the end it's just plain old crime. Hehe. I can't help but notice both drivers are brown folks too. This oughta be good. In this corner the Church of Green, in this corner Progressive Liberal support for the minority community. Who will win?

at 12:42 PM 4 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , , , ,

Fear Has Become A Tool Of Oppression
10.28.2009


I guess it really is all about class after-all, isn't it? An old buddy of mine was forever want to chock-up many of society's ills to economic-class dynamics. I argued and argued that it's usually biological predisposition, but anymore I begin to wonder. That's overstated a bit I suppose because in the end, I still maintain that latent mammalian instinct, combined with environmental stimulus, is the root cause behind many of our ill behaviors. I do, however, observe an increasing number of issues and subsequently conclude that they are, in fact, class-related; and the frequency with which this happens, is increasing.

I'm chatting with another friend of mine yesterday about bicycle-specific infrastructure on Oregon highways, and as multi-use paths (MUP) off-road. This is an ongoing debate, really, between my friend and I. It is this friend's position that bicycle-specific infrastructure is a good thing, and they support all of what they've observed so far. Of course, as most of you know, I maintain the converse position that bicycle-specific infrastructure is whole-heartedly bad. Suffice it to say, and most especially since this, "they", just took the urban-cycling-plunge, we 'chat' about this a lot. Smirk.

The debate quickly distilled down to vulnerable cyclists. Transportation's lowest-common-denomenator, the inept. Though it didn't come up, there is a car equivalent and I'm pretty much 'meh' about letting them drive too. Specific to cycling, and within the context of, "vulnerable", there are those who ride bikes on Oregon highways who are frightened of doing so.

BIAS ALERT==> Right. As it turns out, I'm not the world's biggest fan of making rules, writing legislation, or in any way, shape, or form, making attempts to manifest personal character or emotional issues into regulations by which I must live. Spending money out of the general-fund requires just that when the issue of, "fear", arises. Not fear of being murdered in the darkness. Not fear generated by living near a smoke-stack belching exhaust-gases of unknown types into the air you breath. No, no, the fear that every time you leave your house the one in a million chance something bad is going to happen to you will.

I agree that there are rational fears that we should address by mitigating, or otherwise interfering with, the underlying conditions which generate these fears. The possibility that you might experience a traffic accident, or be the victim of a traffic crime is very, very, small and should be prepared for accordingly; and no one is saying this isn't prudent. An appropriate response to the level of threat present on our highways would be to maybe operate your chosen vehicle defensively, hone your operating skills, and seek objective judgment about your own level of competence.

And it wasn't just an ambiguous, "vulnerable user", either, that my friend and I were chatting about. I've couched my position this way here, but the topic came up in a gender-specific manner as prescribed by the supporting position here, mind you, not my dissenting position. The statement was, "Well, what about girls?". Having made this mistake myself, I mentally corrected this by thinking of all the male users I've seen behave similar to the unspoken, likely forthcoming stereotype, and transfered that correction here. What about girls, indeed?

BIAS ALERT==> As it turns out, I'm not the world's biggest fan of demanding equality with one hand, and demanding special consideration with the other. Pretty much not even real gender-specific about this dislike either. Pretty much don't like anybody who engages in this type of self-indulgence. If you would call this misogyny, I'd debate you.

40 years of contemporary American feminism has been characterized by, virtually punctuated with, equality. Equality is thought to provide independence, independence provides empowerment, empowerment provides opportunity and so on. The spirit of the notion that we are all created equal, within the context of us as an electorate, is written in our Bill of Rights. Everything about this screams that we as Americans, as free people, have a responsibility to take care of ourselves; that we want to take care of ourselves.

So, when somebody says to me, "What about the girls?", I immediately think, "There is no such thing.". Why? Because what I'm going to hear about what qualifies this statement is going to be a bunch of behavioral observations, right along the lines of established stereotypes no-less, and conclusions made with fallacious logic; and I know this. Well, behaviors are the culmination of abstract concepts, at a certain level, and can easily be observed in, and applied to, just about anybody male, and female alike.

Being frightened in traffic isn't a so-called, "chick-thing". When you are sensitive to this fear in a woman, especially as a male, are you so because this fear is present and you can observe it, or are you presuming it's there because it's a woman? I know a lot of men who are afraid to ride a bicycle in traffic. So really then when the topic of bicycle infrastructure comes up, and I oppose a position in support of infrastructure, the opening supportive-salvo is usually that people want infrastructure because they are afraid. Well, dawgawnit, when a woman says to you that she's afraid, can you see it, or is she saying this to manipulate you? Do you even question it? 'Cause I can make a pretty strong argument that males are conditioned to accept a woman's fear as real, and without question. I emphatically wish to rebuke the rebuttal prior to even hearing it. No, I am not stating that a woman expressing fear is always an attempted manipulation. Furthermore, I believe I have personally observed women use expression of fear to manipulate situations in their favor even though I knew them to be consciously unaware of it. Further still it was for a reason that conventional wisdom would likely support in that it was an appeal to the authorities for help with a stalker-type.

I say, "Well, fear has no place in something as innocuous as traffic-planning.", with the notion in mind that the goal should be as many, as fast, and as safely as possible. So my friend tells me this is prejudice towards women and that they are more fearful in traffic; and therefore entitled to special treatment because of this. The special treatment then is bicycle infrastructure; and is fallacious logic also. Another prime example, in my opinion, of why it is important to be pragmatic while managing a city, and creative and whimsical when we have the time and resources.

Even considering my bias, I can't understand why people buy this. When the things people say don't add up I get curious. For instance, if some one says that they are afraid to do something, do they usually do that thing? If they don't, then how do they know the thing is actually dangerous, and that their fears are then rational and justified? If they engage in the behavior they cite as dangerous, only to end up safely at home complaining about fear, something doesn't add up.

Then I think about gender dynamics again. But now I'm thinking of gender dynamics within the context of economic-class. I think of how men are likely biologically predisposed to respond when they are stimulated by a female in distress. I think of how society tacitly reinforces this, and wonder what the effect may be. Isn't it possible that my friend's perception of women categorically being afraid of riding bicycles in Portland traffic be the result of manipulation just as easily as it is bigotry? Women have accrued some wealth at this point. Isn't it possible that, for whatever reasons, maybe women as a group have similar desires to each other, and would subsequently attempt to wield class-power via civic policy? It's plausible to me that the false sense of security afforded by first complaining of a fear, and then seeing it responded to in the form of some paint, is gratifying. Exactly the kind of gratification derived from a class-victory, and not from the accomplishment of anything beneficial to the group.

Isn't it conventional knowledge that people who are threatened by stronger individuals usually appeal to the group for aid? Is it so surprising to think that we are wired up to organize in this fashion? The way in which this appeal is made manifests relative to the person making the appeal. Gender, race, ethnicity, age, class, etc., all enter into it. There are several individuals and groups predisposed to doing it, but they all are guilty of professing a fear that does not exist for the purpose of manipulating the ways in which rules are made; and to artificially benefit themselves at the expense of the group. I'm not saying that this is always the case. But when I ride a bike around out there too, and simply cannot observe conditions I see repeatedly reported upon and described, I have no choice but to be skeptical. That skepticism is transferred right onto the people justifying to me the irrational continuation of substandard policy based on what are obviously manipulations. Is it any wonder then that a male frightened of traffic himself, and conditioned artificially perhaps to be ashamed of this, should find himself in collusion with the lie?

I know a lot of guys who get a lot of tail by making a concerted effort to be perceived by women as, "sensitive". This is sometimes innocent, and sometimes not. Sensitive men understand that a woman's fear does not mean she's weak, what? A sensitive guy can demonstrate his sensitivity by outwardly supporting his lady, and inwardly scorning her, what? Underneath it all, a bike-lane sounds good to him, but hiding behind society's perception that this is natural in his girlfriend, he'd manifest his own irrational fear too. I think this dynamic is analogous with many other things too, when I find myself outnumbered by opposition to my ideas. Women simply must have males in collusion, and in support of, these types of deceptions in order for them to even have a chance to pull it off.

Ya, that's a pretty convoluted way to say that women who profess too much fear out there are yanking your chain. And any guy supporting them is likely just a pussy trying to yank the same chain. I, for one, am getting sick and tired of crawling around in the dirt at a snail's pace while we busily assuage irrational fears that don't even exist. Or, at least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Maybe you lost would-be lovers to guys with hot-rods in high-school. Maybe you're part of the NASCR hating crowd. Maybe you attend the Church of Green and are proselytizing. Maybe you are battling equally fictitious, and fallacious logic and reality. I really don't care what agenda drives you to do it, underneath it all you're just being a class-bully; and it sort of sucks for us poor people.

Whatever your damned agenda, I am now onto you. I am deeply skeptical of any one claiming levels of fear so great that it effects certain aspects of their riding behavior. I ride these streets too, and we're all equal. If you branded each of us with an X and observed our every movement you'd see that one X would be at one end, and another X at the other. Right in the middle would be another X that 9 out of 10 of us would wear; and gender, race, and class wouldn't even enter into it. So no actually. I don't think it's okay to build bike infrastructure because anybody is scared. I think when specific instances occur that specific action should be taken. Sometimes that will be preventative, and serve to assuage rational fear. Most of the time it won't. For the tiny minority of people, of either gender, who still maintain an irrational fear I prescribe empowerment. Why prohibit 80 people from a behavior so that 20 might engage in it who otherwise wouldn't, when we could much easier deploy a little training?

If you have nothing but an irrational love of bike-lanes, well I'm open to discussing that too. It's not like I don't care what color shit is, it's just not my highest priority. What you'll hear from me is that they're maybe okay as long as I don't have to ride in them, and there's plenty of money for higher priorities. I'll say they're okay as long as they don't slow the transport of goods, services, and labor to market. You will hear this though, and be disappointed. Especially if you just want to throw them down as fast as we can in service of some crazy agenda. That disappointment will leave you scrabbling for ways to fuck with me. Since I personally observe that those whom call for this stuff the most often are frequently affluent, female, or female with male bits, I expect there to be pressure applied because that's what one class does to the other. When people of this class typically engage in sterilizing the world into one big hypoallergenic hug, they will most certainly play the fear-card to get what they want. Only don't get sucked into the gender debate, and the politics debate, and all the ancillary horse-shit. Let's keep the feminist movement, the green-movement, the civic-movement, away from anything as pedestrian as planning; or suffer the consequences.

To poor people, the middle-class are wealthy. Read your history. I am poor and I do not make a distinction between the lifestyle of the hyper-rich, and the middle-class. Neither did history. Past the point of a full belly and shelter everyday of your life, it's really moot. The super-green, Church of Green, Progressive Liberal left is a tiny fraction of that middle class. What they are doing now is busily messing with the way people who stock their fucking shelves get the job done, for the purpose of providing more tourist-friendly photographic experiences for themselves, and their friends. Arm in arm with a mob of transplants here to open a small bicycle business and cash-in, these folks have money, access, and a parade of women saying, "But I'm scared, and what about my kids?". Having met with resistance to this agenda from the likes of me, they quickly march out their ladies, get them juiced-up and squirting tears; and set about fucking with me anyway. Even my allies fall prey to the tear-shower, and those that have take from the have-nots one more time.

at 11:15 AM 2 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , , , , , ,

What Will They Think of Next
10.06.2009

"...lawmakers were especially interested in limiting Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes."


It's a world full of goofy bastards ain't it? Now, I want you to stop for a second and inventory any and all vitriol you may have, or ever will, spew at me and consider this quote I pulled from an AP piece. Granted, this is a sexual proclivity, but man I'm just a political-nut. If I creep you out more than stuff like this, one of us needs to put the crack-pipe down and seek psychotherapy.

I saw one of these once. Seriously one of those imprint moments. After endless months of surfing the net, catharsis, caffeine and nicotine diet, malnutrition setting in, I happened across a video of a young Japanese couple who made one of these. I thought all of the smiling, and sexually provocative demeanor of the girl and stuff, was the result of some weird foreign sense of humor. Only now, knowing what I know of Japanese sexual proclivity too, do I get it. Insert shaking of the head, with slight smirk for good measure.

Holy poo. Avoid viewing one of these at all costs. I'm blown away that these are considered free-speech, let alone protected as such. I was paranoid after having viewed it that dudes would start repelling out of black helicopters, and I've kicked myself ever since for not grabbing a copy. The damn thing has given me nightmares.

Alright, mystery solved. I swear, just running across something like that on the net will really set you back on your heels. Most surreal shit I've ever seen. I should have known it was somebody's kink. Makes me want to explore the world of bicycle related sexual-deviance and look for some good 'footy. Get it? Oh, I slay me.

at 10:03 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , , , , ,

Portland Oregon Bans Bicycles from Area Streets
10.01.2009

"The Bicycle Transportation Alliance is the voice of bicyclists at the Oregon state capitol."

Kind of sends a chill down the spine, doesn't it. (Melodramatic pause.) For those of you who don't know, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance is a membership-group that likely claims a 501(c)3 deduction. That quote is pulled, fairly context independent really, from their mission statement. They say 5K on their lit, but I've seen their own people say 3.5k, dues-paying members. If you'll notice on this page, there is a description of the BTAs program for kids.

That quote up there, directly from the BTAs own web-site, really sets my teeth on edge. I'm a cyclist, and I don't remember joining any churches. I don't remember voting for anybody to do this, and I sure as heck don't want any if there are. I have practiced my own advocacy over the years, and many of this organization's strategies and objectives directly contravene that advocacy. I have worked tirelessly to maintain my access to Oregon highways. (In Oregon, what you likely consider an ordinary road, road-way, avenue, boulevard, and the like, are referred to as, "highways", both in ORS and the legislative body alike.) The so-called bicycle-lane, a traffic-treatment the BTA vigilantly supports and advocates for, is also a ban from the highway it's on. That right there is some, "...speaking for cyclists...", I can frickin' do without.

Oregon Revised Statute 814.420 mandates that cyclists use a bike-lane, instead of the highway, where they are present. The same statute outlines a few exemptions, and makes use of terms and conditions correlated to other statute. Ergo, those who support bike-lanes, support banning bicyclists from the highway. I've been trying to get on the highway for two and a half decades, and the BTA can't legislate and spend me off of it fast enough.

Personal safety. The BTA really, and I mean really, likes that word. Safety. It is the principle reason, stated over and over, or chanted over and over whichever you prefer, that safety is why we do it. Let's get back to the kid's program. Notice the picture on that page? Kids all truckin' along a what? Ya a highway. Now wait a second. Bicycle-lanes are openly, and admittedly used to entice new riders; and this with promises of a safer rider experience. Safer than what?

That's kids riding down a highway that is so unsafe we need to ban cyclists from doing it, but perfectly safe for the kids?

Somebody help me with the math here. You know what else bugs me? Their stupid damn kids' program in the first place. For the conclusion jumpers: Don't be an ass. Of course it's important to mentor, and teach children. Don't be an ass. My concern is the curriculum, not that there is an educational opportunity.

I'll just pose it all as a question because I haven't attended, nor volunteered to teach one. I'll bet they tell these kids to wear helmets. I'll bet they tell these kids that if they don't, they'll be maimed or killed. I'll bet they don't tell them, that even with that helmet, they can be road-kill anyway. I'll bet they tell kids bike-lanes are safer for them. I'll bet they don't have any evidence that's even remotely true. I'll bet they tell those kids it's good for the environment to bike which is a bald-face lie. Riding a bike changes an incredibly dynamic, heavily nuanced, state of consumption which has negligible effect. Not burning fossil fuels, the true impetus of any sensible debate, is the benefit of riding a bicycle after it's produced. This is sophisticated stuff you can bet they just skip when they feel like it, and tell the kids just to ride their bikes, it's good for the planet. "And we don't want to hurt the planet, do we kids?"

Worse still is that I'll bet now that they're flooding the streets with their kids and anything but a billy-goat that rolls, they'll want us all to change a hundred year old paradigm, you know today, and welcome their highway bans, superfluous spending, and using the government as a surrogate mother.

I've seen with my own eyes, Michelle Poyourow of the BTA advocate for monitoring cameras used to surveil the public, and a heavy police presence to go with it, be deployed on a proposed bicycle/pedestrian facility associated with the Columbia River Crossing project. This woman wants to watch you to make sure you behave, she's on record saying it.

Having just returned from a two-year stay in Colorado I hit town right before the Sparling death. I happened unwittingly across the BikePortland.org blog and subsequently found out about a memorial ride planned. An impromptu, clandestine one, not anything legit. I was forced to watch Scott Bricker grab a microphone and start preaching this shit to the crowd gathered for the memorial ride. There was this awkward wince/cringe simultaneously felt by a few hundred people. It was gross, it was sickening, it was the most blatant, and naked display of raw ego, fumbling, at times meandering speech, and just plain obliviousness I've ever seen. A guy banging his head to his iPod turned up too loud at a funeral would have been making less of an ass of himself.

Remember that opening quote? Ya that's the guy you got in Salem speaking for you if you're a cyclist.

So, I write this blog now, what are you doing? I could use a lawyer, I could use a place to meet, and I could use some help with the beat. I could use some feedback from automobile-industry people interested in advertising. The same too for firearms, motorcycles, and just about anything sure to cause a ruckus. Are you a reasonable person who sympathizes but feel alienated by my anti-theist rhetoric? Has the fact that you are reading some one's web-log left your mind? Say something. If you agree with me about one thing, but hate something else, well that's a start. I urge you to employ the same freedom I do, and rebut things you disagree with. I'm feeling my Libertarian/Nationalist upbringing-sense tingling here too, and I know what it's like to go against this and seek to organize. If you are here because you are ready to take action, but aren't going to because I'm a dick, well then let's work something out, mkay? Talk about, "Who watches the watchers?", man these goddamn civic-groups are a pain in the ass. The vast majority are well meaning folks. Unfortunately, they're deluded well-meaning folks and so too for some pretty infamous villains throughout history. I'd really like to start taking a much closer look at them all.

at 8:16 AM 4 comments Links to this post

Labels: , ,

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)