Thu 21 Sep 2006
I have a lot of cargo needs. Over the last several weeks I have been attempting to deal with these cargo needs by adding various claptrap to my bike or my person: first a cargo rack, then a rack trunk bag, and finally a messenger bag that should be out of my price range but was graciously covered by some lawyers who my advisor and I get to bill by the hour. It’s a shame it took a catastrophic metallurgical failure to provide me with the cash to cover the cost, but come on, this bag is to die for.
(Oh jeez, I’m going to hell for that one. Someone really did die. But hey, it wasn’t my weld.)
You could theoretically bike your butt to work with the messenger bag alone, as it’s got ample room for a change of clothes, your laptop, a little night reading, and a thermos of coffee, but why load that all on your back when you have so many other cargo configurations to choose from? So the last couple weeks of commuting have seen me experimenting with different load distributions: what goes on the bike, what goes on my back, and what am I wearing for the ride. Unfortunately, experimentation like this is not something you want to do first thing in the morning before your second grande coffee. Because inevitably you will end up changing out of your biking duds into your nice work shirt and your nice pants and reach into both bags to find a serious lack of nice shoes. (I even remembered a belt this time, but not so much on the shoes.) And then you will find yourself confined to your desk until everyone else goes home because you’re dressed entirely like a grown-up except for the pathetic rubber jokes on your feet known as Crocs™.
Yes, I own Crocs™. In my defense, my mother gave them to me, and in her defense, she got them before they were trendy. But not before they were ugly — they have always been, and will always be, unacceptably ugly.
Thank God they’re black, at least. Maybe if I move quickly no one will notice.
Oh forget it. I’ll just ride it out a few more hours and uh…pee in this empty Coke bottle.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:56 am
A bit of failure analysis, eh? Very nice. I’m getting to do a bit of that for the next few weeks, too. I almost gave you a call regarding some FCG stuff but couldn’t find your phone #. I eventually figured it out (and found your #).
Enjoy the bag!
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:43 pm
MUNCH!!! He lives! Wow, that was a heavy does of the exclamation mark, sorry about that. Anyway, crocs are butt. Of course, they aren’t as fugly as Uggs. Oh how I hate Uggs (particularly when worn with $100+ sweatpants, oversized sunglasses, and Northface jackets).
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
By the way, the exclamation mark often goes by the name exclamation point. Law school’s not good for the brain.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:29 pm
There is NO excuse for Crocs. None whatsoever.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:23 pm
And also known, according to The Electric Company (also produced by CTW), simply as BOING!.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
aside from two grammatical errors, shelby—using “who” in lieu of “whom” and the dangling prep ending your question about the countless options now that you are equipped with such a HOTT (misspelling intentional) transportational phenomenon, i’d say this is a pretty hilarious article.
crocs are fugly… as a previous commenter aptly noted. in fact, perhaps a better word for them would be hideous!
i say—devote your next “rando” article to the heinousness of CROCS!
September 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Aside from the lack of capitalization, imbalanced use of the emdash, and typo on the word “random,” I’d say thanks for the critique!
September 26th, 2006 at 1:09 am
the capitalization and use of rando, as indicated with the quotation marks, BTW, were no typos, my friend…. u may have me there on the unbalanced emdash, though.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:12 am
rock the crocs
crocs no socks
crocs 4 roadbloxxx….
hahah… think of what fun you could have from a brainstroming and alternate spelling perpective….