Enough with the fluff: The Automotive X-Prize

I've given some thought to the original X-Prize recently. While it led to some amazing innovations in the funding of spaceflight, increases in cost efficiency and improving the environmental impact of space flight, it didn't touch the average person. While space flight is nice, and, I believe, vital to the continuation of the human species, it lacks an immediacy, an impact on their daily lives. However, given its successes, it can be viewed as a proof-of-concept for the much more immediately important Automotive X-Prize. The final draft has yet to be released. However, over 30 teams have already signed letters of intent to compete. The goal of this is to produce a commercially-viable automobile capable of a fuel economy of 100 mpg or equivalent. It is my belief and my hope that this venture will be able to do through the power of human ingenuity and the competitive spirit that drives very nearly all meaningful change what government regulations have thus far failed to do, and do them in a much faster manner than the, ahem, hallowed halls of government bureaucracy are capable of achieving.

When people purchase a car, they typically ask themselves if it looks good, if they can afford it, and if it can do what they need it to do, not necessarily in that order. I think if a car is capable of answering all three of those questions satisfactorily and achieve a fuel economy exceeding 100 mpg, the age of the gas guzzler will well and truly be over, and the environment will be improved as a result.

Of Freedom Fries and Friendship with France:

Recently, I saw on the news that Presidents Bush and Sarkozy (sp?) met, and there was no talk of "freedom fries". The first time I heard that term, I recognized it for the utter dipshittery that it is. Actually, the first time I heard that term, I thought it was a hilarious example of Monty Pythonian humor, but stopped laughing when I realized some people actually took it seriously. The second time I heard the term, I recognized its complete and utter dipshittery. Well, I announce that, long after those voices have been quieted, those people having found several other meaningless ideological battles to fight, I am finally opposed to the term "French fries". To use such a term is a slight against the Belgians, who first perfected the art of frying potatoes. Also, the very process of making "French fries" in the American sense of the term is a complete abortion, geared more towards mass production than quality. The Belgians have perfected this art, and create such wonderful homages to the humble potato in the process. In addition, the English have done quite well for themselves in this area, making their "chips" and dousing them with malt vinegar. So while I do enjoy french fries on occasion, I'm largely opposed to their existence. Instead, I believe they should be called "pommes frites" and prepared as such. To do less is to demean a great vegetable.

I hope you are all mad as hell at this.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

My endorsement for President:

I know this is a bit late in the game, but I've finally found a Presidential candidate I can support without reservation: Dr. Ron Paul, who, although he's a Republican, more closely embodies the ideals of the Founding Fathers and who more consistently favors a vast reduction of government than any of the other candidates from the two major parties. I disagree with him substantially on social issues and on immigration, but far from being the least of all evils, he's a man of integrity. I often say that I would rather honestly disagree with someone than dishonestly agree with them, and this is such an instance, though even the disagreements are not as significant as with other candidates. I know he will never be President, but if he were elected to that office, our nation would be in excellent hands indeed.

The end of an era:

First, I note with sorrow the passing of The Weekly World News. The absurdist humor and entertainingly fake stories were a source of much amusement and mirth. Sadly, they found they could no longer compete in the fake news business with the leader in the field of manufactured and falsified headlines in print media, the New York Times.

Second, I note with sorrow the acquisition of Dow Jones by Rupert Murdoch, the current leader in manufactured and falsified headlines in the televised media. I think I tried to read the Wall Street Journal, once. I found it a wonderful sedative. Rupert Murdoch is much like the Borg Queen of Star Trek fame, except Alice Krige is far hotter and charming, and the Borg Queen character was an infinitely more sympathetic and cuddly figure. And this is the point where I realize that Ms. Krige is around my mother's age and go to the shrink... Hell, she's still a very dignified-looking hottie.

Third, some bridge up in Minneapolis collapsed, killing 9 and injuring 60. While I also note this with sorrow, I'm even sorrier that CNN (and, I'm assuming, Fox News though I haven't watched it in ages) couldn't find a more relevant story to the nation as a whole. This reeks of the type of "bystander of a roadside accident" drama that has taken the place of actual reporting over the last few years, and I for one am sick and goddamned tired of it. There's more important things going on in this nation than a bridge collapse, such as the impending collapse of Social Security and the near-exponential ballooning of the national debt.

Finally, R Kelly is finally getting his day in court. Although he is entitled to the presumption of innocence in this matter, I believe he's completely guilty of another misdeed that has made him quite rich: Creating shitty music. Jesus GODDAMNED CHRIST ON A POGO STICK!!! "I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky." I didn't know Christians tripped on acid. Fuck!

Thankfully, I have some real music. Enjoy.

Cheney and his bum ticker:

I'm glad that, as stated by the Chicago Tribune Cheney 'fine' after defibrillator is replaced. As much of a schmuck as he is, I don't wish him, or more importantly, his family, any ill will. However, I find it an interesting juxtaposition that, a week after his alleged boss, Bush, made Cheney acting President for two hours and five minutes, Bush became acting Vice President while Cheney's defibrillator was being replaced. During that time, he admirably fulfilled the modern duties of that office, namely, sitting around like an idiot, not being particularly relevant to much of anything, and making someone else in the government look good in comparison.

As always, enjoy the music. I thought the video in particular was appropriate for this. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZstaRZQ-WJU

A random irritation:

First, to be absolutely clear, I have no problem whatsoever with the GLBT community. As long as non-related adults are happy and involved in a loving and healthy relationship based on mutual respect, and as long as they respect my right to do the same (although "right" and "ability" are very much different issues and something I have to work on...), I'm cool. No, what bothers me is all of these beautiful women playing transvestite or transgender males. It wasn't too bad when it was Olympia Dukakis in the "More Tales of the City" miniseries, but lately, I've seen the still beautiful Mimi Rogers on one show playing a male transvestite, and on "Ugly Betty", I saw the stunning Rebecca Romijn playing a male-to-female transsexual. I think it's warped mah fragile little mahnd, to quote Eric Cartman from South Park. Fuck it. Mimi Rogers and Rebecca Romijn are still fucking HOT! Still, it seems like such a shame to waste that kind of beauty on an admittely hilarious plot device.

With that in mind, I post the following flashback to a more innocent time. Enjoy. :)

More on minarchism vs. isolationist anarchism:

Paul, please forgive me, but you raised an interesting point in the comments section of my post.

1138 said...

"No, I'd put you somewhere closer to an isolationist anarchist than a conservative.

"I think there are a lot of folks who thing they want what you believe you want.
All I can do is pray that you never get it.
A modern technological society can't run on the governmental division you aspire to, just look at the Balkans."

7/25/2007 10:39 AM

My response was as follows:

Not quite. I'm a minarchist, which is similar (to an anarchist), but unlike anarchists, I at least acknowledge the necessity of the existence of government. I echo a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany in 1819, "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Yet the paradox that is inherent in this statement is who steps in when the "equal rights of others" are violated? This common defense of the rights of others is the greatest purpose of government, and in fact, the one that is most ethically sound for a government to undertake. Leave charity to individuals, churches, and other organizations. They're far better at administering it, and they're not nearly as likely to misuse the funds for other ends as we've seen with Social Security.

The cite for the Jefferson quote is here, and is available on the University of Virginia website. In short, I believe government is a necessary evil, but one whose scope and power should be as small as possible while defending the rights of the individual from harm caused by others. I'm not opposed to the use of military force; I merely think we as a people should think long and hard before we do so, and that it be done very judiciously.

Please, don't call me a conservative.

First, I believe the most succinct crystallization of the proper role of government can be found in the Wiccan Rede: "An' ye harm none, do what ye will." I'm a Christian by philosophy, upbringing, and culture, yet I've never seen my political beliefs stated better.

Also, don't get me wrong: If this were the 1960s, I would at least be aligned with the Goldwater conservatives. The modern neoconservative, however, I find as distasteful as the abuses of power and fiscal mismanagement that have also been, if not typical, then at least not atypical, of the American liberal movement in the past, most notably in the form of LBJ. Of course, this is in contrast with classic liberalism which is a completely different creature.

If you choose to pick my stances apart, I am extremely fiscally conservative. I believe the government should judiciously manage the hard-earned money every taxpayer entrusts them with, while doing their best to take as little of it as possible so as to do minimal harm to the economy.

However, it is my stance on the proper role of the military that my conservative credentials start to fall apart. I favor either a completely non-interventionist policy or a minimally-interventionist stance. The proper role of the military is to defend the United States. In some rare and very proscribed cases, such as stopping genocides such as what we see in Darfur and elsewhere around the globe, I would support the insertion of our troops, but only if there were a clear mission and if we had the resources to help. In such a case, however, I would much prefer other forms of humanitarian aid.

As for the government's intrusion into people's personal lives, frankly, I think Las Vegas is too conservative by half, and I even think The Netherlands could use a bit more liberalization in the classical sense, though at least they are almost there. What consenting adults do with their own bodies, as long as they harm no other, should not be subject to the government's intervention. However, I do support using intoxication as an aggravating circumstance in the consideration of other crimes, such as Lindsay Lohan's recent stunt. In her case, the possession and consumption of various substances should not be at issue directly. It's the fact that she endangered others and knew this was a risk of what she was doing. Had she done that at home and slept it off, that would have been an entirely different issue.

On immigration, as long as the immigrants are willing to assimilate to our culture and can function at some level in our society without becoming a burden, I say open the floodgates. We're all a nation of immigrants here. It's just that, for some of us, it happened so many generations ago that we've forgotten.

I'm also very irritated about this "left vs. right" thing. The terminology hasn't had any true relevance since Revolutionary France, when the terms were defined by the seating arrangements at their assemblies. In this White House, I've seen some telling elements of fascism, and this is not a term I use casually. Fascism is every bit as much anathema to a moderate conservative as socialism is to a moderate liberal.

I believe people should be kind and generous to one another, but the government has proven time and again that they are grossly inefficient at handling charity, and that, frankly, is the least of their problems.

So, if I'm not a conservative, what am I? For one, I'm an anti-federalist. The government works best that works closest to the people they serve. Therefore, I support vastly increased decentralization of government power. In the end, I love freedom, and a strong central government, as proven most recently by this administration, is anathema to such a goal. While I'm not entirely a pacifist, I'm very restrained in my support of uses of force, again almost exclusively for the purpose of self-defense. In short, I'm a minarchist, though one who's intelligent enough to know that if this is to work, an incrementalist approach is necessary, and we must clean up the messes of those who came before to avoid further damage to the country.

Finally, conservatives and liberals have hope that the government will right itself just on the brink of disaster. Based on the evidence, I believe the time for such action is now to rein in the spending and reform and/or eliminate programs, and I believe it's not going to begin to happen until it's already too late. Whenever someone calls me a conservative, I think at times they grossly overestimate my optimism. At my best, I'm a pragmatist, and at worst, I'm very much a pessimist.

Enjoy the music.

Woohoo!!! I did what South Park worked to avoid:

Mingle² - Free Online Dating

I would like to thank my filthy FUCKING mouth for this award. :)