Saturday, April 02, 2011

Douchey Anti-Biking Satire is Still Douchey and Anti-Bike

P.J. O'Rourke on the Scourge of Bike Lanes

I used to get PJ O'Rourke, I've read a few of his books back when I actually read real paperbooks. I thought he was reasonably funny, had some good lines but was sort of a pale and not even remotely as funny spinoff from the Hunter Thompson vein of wild journalism.

But here's the thing. Being a douche about people who ride bikes, even if its satire which I assume every single thing PJ O'Rourke writes is, is still being an asshole about people who are moving themselves to where they need to go by their own efforts resulting in less pollution, better personal health, less traffic and a better connection to the world the cyclist inhabits (as opposed to the climate controlled interiors of most cars which make as much of a distinction between outside world and inside as possible).

He doesn't like the fact that cyclists have bike lanes in cities because it takes away from the so much more practical personal transport vehicle. Cars are, compared to bikes, ridiculously complex, overly cushy, inefficient, stinky, expensive and ungainly.

Heck, cars compared to motorcycles are the same. When I ride my motorcycle in traffic, I'm often struck by just how stupidly excessive ninety percent of the cars people are driving are. Even a four seat sedan usually driven by just one person is tremendously wasteful and inefficient.

O'Rourke says his ridiculously huge Suburban seats 8 people. How often does it actually seat 8 people? How often does it even seat 2 people?

Bikes go nowhere and carry nothing? As trolling goes, this is pretty poor and transparent and really just plain stupid. Unless you need to carry an entire Suburban's worth of something everywhere, all the time, you're more likely to have a briefcase or backpack, both of which are easily transportable via bike.

Even as satire though, the article is mean-spirited and ugly and, well, stupid. It makes poor arguments, backed up with worse premises and foregone douchey faux-witty conclusions.

Seriously, PJ, you're taking slaps at trying to make Americans fitter? With a third of the adults in the country considered obese, you're really and truly going to make fun of the need for more people to get off their fat asses and exercise? How about being fit because it makes you feel good? How about being fit because you get sick less, you can play with your kids more and, here's a good one, have better sex and, presuming you're having better sex with your wife or husband, strengthen the relationship resulting in a happier house, more well adjusted kids growing into well adjusted, healthy, active adults.

Good for PJ, he wrote another column, got paid again and can pretend to be some kind of writer.

Why the Wall Street Journal would publish this piece of shit is another question altogether though. I mean, really. Its not funny, its not inciteful, its not of any value whatsoever and demonstrates that PJ O'Rourke is an unfunny, wasteful douche.

(Side note, no, I wasn't trying to break the record for the use of the word, douche, and I apologize if I offend anyone with its repeated use)
blog comments powered by Disqus