Wow, I really didn’t anticipate being this drunk. Good thing I’m at home. Now, for the record, I only drink when I’m pretty much done with the day and there is a 100% certainty that I will not be leaving my home. On the off-chance that somehow, the improbable happens and I am asked to drive, I simply raise my empty bottle and proclaim, nah, I’m too drunk to drive. If it’s that bad of an emergency call a cab or an ambulance (if for example somebody needs to go to the hospital). Pro-tip: if you’re seriously injured you probably should call an ambulance even if you’re sober. Also, for the record, I’ve only had two beers (like I said I really didn’t anticipate being this drunk. This feels weird). My point being is, I thought this was going to be lighter drinking than I thought, and regardless it’s ok because I absolutely ensured that even with “light” drinking I would be staying home, guaranteed, through tomorrow morning at the earliest. But anyway, with that disclaimer out of the way let’s make it Oppo-worthy (or at least try to but probably fail anyway).

On drinking and driving

Recently I made a post about how an actress I greatly admire revealed she was arrested for DUI and how disappointed I had been with this revelation (I’m too drunk to find the link, you can find it either on the sidebar or by clicking on the sidebar, you know what to do). Now, it’s rather awkward that I made a post about driving drunk while actually drunk, but at the same time I feel obligated to address the issue - it’s a bit too late to not look like a hypocrite, but precisely because of the hypocrisy it must be addressed. Some guy said there’s nothing wrong with hypocrisy as hypocrisy is better than, say, deciding it’s better to avoid hypocrisy by just being an asshole all the time (I forgot who said it but you can find out more in the Wikipedia article for “hypocrisy”). But anyway, to repeat what I had said in that post, there is absolutely no excuse to drive drunk in this day and age. There’s Uber, there’s cabs, there’s, well, just no excuse. If for whatever reason you insist on being drunk you either 1.) ensure that you don’t need to drive or 2.) ensure you have arrangements - a designated driver, or Uber, or a cab. I mean, seriously, “making arrangements” take two minutes on your smartphone. Or if you don’t have a smartphone because you’re either poor or have technologically backwards parents who think Trump is a good idea for president (don’t inquire as to whether or not I’m alluding to personal example) it’s not hard to make the same arrangements through some sort - actually, literally any sort of computing device. If you’re at a bar and you lose your phone, ask the barkeep for help. He or she should be morally and legally obligated to help you out. I understand that being drunk means losing your ability to make wise decisions - which is why it’s a good idea to make these decisions before you get drunk. Trust me, I know, I’ve been drunk before. I’m drunk now. And yet, somehow, yes, amazingly, somehow, I’m still smart enough to not get behind the wheel of a car and freakin’ try to kill someone.

And you know what? I place a lot of the blame on venues that serve alcohol. I bet if you go back and look at most DUI statistics, most people arrested/involved in accidents were arriving from venues that serve alcohol (bars, public-access places that serve alcohol, what have you) as opposed to drinking at home and then traveling. There needs to be greater legal pressure placed on places that serve alcohol. Here’s a dirty secret (and this is coming from someone who’s worked in the airline industry) - the airline industry knows that over 90% of incidents from unruly passengers inflight are the result of said passengers being inebriated. Why do they still serve alcohol on flights? Because they have made the determination that it’s far more profitable to keep serving alcohol on flights and deal with drunken unruly passengers than it is to not serve alcohol and have a 90% reduction in having their own aircraft turn around due to a drunk passenger needing to be subdued. This will only change if there’s a law passed essentially demanding airlines into prohibition or face legal consequences that threaten their ability to make a profit - again, most airlines have determined that it’s far more profitable to simply pay the fines for minor safety violations than it is to actually address those shortcomings. But, ah well.

The reason why I’m particularly disappointed in this particular actress getting arrested for a DUI is because I ended up watching a lot of her TV show when I was doing chemo. When I found out I had cancer I had just recently broke up with the longest relationship I’ve yet had, with a young woman who was an alcoholic. She was charged with DUI after flipping her car over multiple times while still on her learner’s permit. She kept complaining about how unfair it was that she can’t get a license because it cost her over 10 grand to unsuccessfully fight the DUI charge, even though, you know, she flipped her car over with another underaged passenger inside before she even got her full license. One time she asked me for help with a job interview she had. I told her to show up sober. She showed up with a Hello Kitty mug full of Malibu Rum. She thought that since it was in a Hello Kitty mug and not drinking straight from the bottle, it would be OK and they wouldn’t catch on.

I still miss her for some incredibly stupid reason.

On actual Oppo stuff

In my humble opinion, the prettiest thing on wheels is a gorgeous, classic motorcycle or some type. I think it’s easier to style a motorcycle into an art form than it is a car. Well, that’s not true. I’m pretty sure anybody credible towards being “Jalop” will tell you Delahayes, for example, uniquely double as both legitimate transportation and rolling art.

Advertisement

For many people, the closed-pontoon Delahaye represents both the ultimate form of and logical conclusion to the art deco form applied to the automotive function. Image from Supercars.net

Fast-forward today and - granted, this type of automobile, the type of car that made form its first priority - Delahayes, Bugattis, Harley Earl’s Buicks, etc. - were rare to begin with, but today they almost seem completely extinct. Delahaye, Bugatti and all the other great French brands survived WWII - but only for a few years, to be axed by actions from DeGalle’s own government. Earl’s successors including Bill Mitchell, Larry Shinoda and John DeLorean rebelled against what had been increasingly seen as overly baroque and old-fashioned, and began a trend in which form doesn’t follow function but rather function is form. Granted, they came out with some amazing-looking cars still - including the classics, the Chevelle, the Camaro, the Mustang, the AMX. All these cars had straight lines and crisp edges compared to the Bugattis and Delahayes that treated rulers as tools of the devil and compound curves as something you can never have too much of. And yet they not only come off as beautiful but meaning business. The watershed moment was really the 1986 Ford Taurus - the sharp crease was gone, but every body panel was a slab side. It was an incredibly revolutionary car, aesthetically, when it came out - so much so that it had been endlessly copied. The 1992 Toyota Camry, itself gunning right for the Taurus, was a statement that Toyota can outdo Ford at its own game, and arguably succeeded brilliantly to the point of being copied and setting permanent trends itself. Today, well, we now have cars that look like (take your pick) Ford Fusion-Mondeo/Hyundai Sonata/Honda Accord/Toyota Camry/Nissan Altima/Chrysler 200. In other words all cars look the same. The only exception was the last-gen Malibu which looks like an aesthetic argument for “well at least you tried” is a legitimate design goal. Fortunately they corrected that with the current one, so now it looks like “copying everyone else is a-ok” is a legitimate design goal (and again, apparently it is).

Something Something Bugatti, image from Timezone.com

Advertisement

Even supercars look, well, let’s just say the 30s are long gone even in the $150k+ market. The Veyron looks like an incredibly fast scarab, which granted is something, but it looks like a scarab that acknowledges that it’s overweight but finally just resigned and accepted that it’s a feature, not a defect. The Chiron looks like the Bugatti designers don’t want to be bothered with coming up with something that isn’t just another Veyron and who cares as long as it has the Bugatti badge and is only affordable to oil shieks and people who have made a profession of pretending to be legit down in the ATL (or like the Veyron/Bugatti itself have just taken the path of least resistance and completely given up - Versace Versace Versace Versace Versace). McLarens, Ferraris, and Lamborginis are very pretty variations of the mid-engine wedge theme. You can buy yourself an Aston Martin Vanquish which will gather both the admiration of everyone and calls of Nice Vantage. And so on.

The Ariel Square Four is an example of a compact, upright-riding motorcycle that relied on the presentation of its details to stand out aesthetically. Image from Shannons.co.au, whatever the heck that site is supposed to be about (Shannons, I guess).

Then you had the era of motorcycles where motorcycles looked like, um, motorcycles I guess. Read the caption I just wrote under that picture above, I’m too drunk to repeat myself right now. You had brightwork and subtly styled fenders and stuff. People might not have really categorized bikes into neat categories beyond place of origin, but retroactively we recognize the cruisers/proto-cruisers of Indian and Harley, the British Standard, Japanese Universal and Sport/Supersport. What’s a “British Standard” and “Japanese Universal?” Simply put they were gentlemen’s/gentlewomen’s bikes. Yeah, that’s right.

Advertisement

Some guy doing a douchebag impression, I stole this image from Wes Siler, wherever he stole it from first.

Now there’s probably a reason why you’ve never heard of “British Standard” or “Japanese Universal” because they pretty much quit existing. As is of the market, just like with four-wheel cars, things gotta contract into fewer aesthetic qualities in order to follow the leader. Now you have just cruisers and sport/supersport bikes. You still have “standard” bikes but they also look like cruisers and sport/supersport bikes and the average non-rider can’t tell a damn between a six-year-old Ninja 250 and a brand-new Gixxer 1k.

Triumph’s one of the few hold-outs with the Bonneville line, and now you have the emerging Scrambler-style which is really just a revival of the British Standard/Japanese Universal style again, except “Scrambler” sounds cooler I guess, nevermind that it refers to a specific type of bike that new “Scramblers” don’t necessarily conform to (I’ll believe it when the XRS900 comes with high exhaust pipes even as just a factory option). The closest bike I can even find besides Bonnevilles and Moto Guzzi V7s is, I dunno - really, the Victory Octane.

Advertisement

Ok that’s all I have, AMA I guess and whatever. About bikes, my pathetic inability to get over my ex etc.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Versace.