Sunday, October 31, 2010

How About A Little Classic NASCAR?

I was over at The Borderline Sociopathic Blog For Boys this morning and found this post, a video from Jay Leno's garage where they track test a '66 Galaxy NASCAR race car.

That got me to thinking about when NASCAR really took off, popularity wise, in the late sixties/early seventies when there was considerable factory support.

Ever seen a Daytona Charger?

How about a Talledega Torino?

These cars were built specifically to compete in NASCAR, and by NASCAR's homologation rules at least 500 cars had to be built and sold, and in the Torino's case only 783 were built. The Daytona Charger barely made the cut at 543. So you probably have never seen one on the street, especially since the Daytona Chargers sell in the half a million dollar range. And UP, depending on equipment.

What if Ford and Chevy went back to the days when what raced at Daytona was available in the showroom?

Sure, you can buy a Malibu. But the one at Daytona is a front-engine, rear-wheel drive V8. The showroom version? Front wheel drive V6. IF you're lucky.

The cars on the track have as much in common with the cars in the showroom as I do with Obama. And that ain't much. And. just for the record, I am the more powerful NASCAR version.

So what about doing a Classic NASCAR; where the cars are, with the addition of some safety items, just like what you can buy off of the showroom floor? Let the manufacturers put some effort into the winning on Sunday, selling on Monday rule, and see what they can come up with.

Even if it winds up just being the Mustangs, Camaros and Chargers battling it out, it will make for some fun racing.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Got "CLUE"?

I re-watched the movie "Clue" (WARNING: this site does give away the endings, if you haven't seen the movie, but would like to) last night. I was digging in the DVD cabinet for another movie I'd decided to watch and hit upon Clue first.

Apparently it didn't do well with the critics 25 years ago (who cares), but has developed a 'cult' following. I never realized I was part of a cult.

The movie has a great set, some great scenes and some great writing. If you are familiar with the board game all of the rooms are here, along with a few more. Even the secret passages are a part of the movie.

I can see why the critics didn't like it. There is no 'message'; no 'conflict' and no trashing of 'the establishment'. Although they do take a swipe at J. Edgar Hoover at one point.

The setup of the movie is just and excuse for some great comic exchanges. the whole movie moves quickly; setting up situations and blasting through them. This exchange takes place as teh Butler, Wadsworth, is explaining about th eblackmail that brought everyone together:

Professor Plum: What is your top-secret job, Colonel?
Wadsworth: I can tell you. He's working on the secret of the next fusion bomb.
Colonel Mustard: How did you know that?
Wadsworth: Can you keep a secret?
Colonel Mustard: Yes...
Wadsworth: So can I.

AND, while doing reasearch for this post I found out Hollywierd is up to it again. They are planning a remake of 'Clue', due out in 2011. But, no details yet as to teh cast or exactly when it will be released.

Maybe we got lucky and they changed their minds.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

I Know I Was Busy Today, But...

I still can't figure out what I missed.

When I went to work gas was $2.79 for premium.

I didn't stop.

On the way home it was $2.95.

What blew up, fell down or caught fire that caused gas to jump 16 cents in 8 hours?

I should have stopped this morning.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Precedent Folks, Precedent

I found this through Instapundit this afternoon.

I hear the Democrats are really ticked off at this episode too.

Each student only got to vote once.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Can't Do

I be honest. I ain't got time right now to do a post on this issue.

But I have to, because of some dipstick Judge in California, who decided her power is greater than that of Congress.

I don't understand he ruling. I haven't read it, and probably won't. She made her decision first, and then pulled some sort of legal 'reasoning' out of her hindquarters to support it the best she could. So who cares what she says to support her "impartial' decision.

The Judge was Virginia Phillips. This is her bio.

Berkley Law School. That kind of explains her fuzzy thinking doesn't it? I just wonder who it was who bought her this seat from Clinton?

You tell me; how does banning gays in the military violate their free speech rights? Because they can't 'TELL' anyone they are gay?

So? The United States Military isn't a standard less organization. Each standard has a reason. What's next? Because the Army won't allow blind snipers they are again in violation of the 14th Amendment? What other sort of qualification will next be on the chopping block to reduce our military readiness?

Hell, I want to be a damn Navy Seal. The fact that I can't stand water shouldn't disqualify me. It's a meaningless standard that violates my 14th Amendment rights. And that they won't let me enlist because I'm 50 does too.

If the Joint Chiefs, the President and the Congress all have determined that being openly homosexual is not conductive to good order and discipline, then who is this idiot in a robe, who probably has never been closer to the Amy than when she listens to that dippy song about the Kent State shootings 40 years ago, to decide otherwise?

Over turn the policy, that's fine. We appeal and a higher court is able to determine that she was full of crap and everybody goes home happy.

Why the injunction to stop the policy? Injunctions are only supposed to be issued if there is significant evidence of harm to a party. I still don't see it.

Oh well; in January we can not only reinstate the policy, we can impeach her and send her back to where ever it was Clinton pulled her from to sit on the bench.

One other thing that bothers me in this discussion too is how they always manage to trot out somebody who talks about how well they served their country while gay, and it didn't cause a discipline issue.


Who are the stupid dipsticks who actually fall for that?

You may have gathered from my tone that I am PISSED.

There is ONE entity on the face of this Earth that can protect us from a war on our soil; the United States Military. I don't like some damned idiotic judge messing with military policy and what very well could affect military readiness, because she "FEELS" it is the "Right thing to do". Based on her years of military service I suppose?

Edited and added:

I am also reminded by a friend that DADT was developed because the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires discharge for any member found to be homosexual, and now that DADT has been declared void and not to be enforced, any gay member can be summarily discharged.

Talk about your unintended consequences.

And this judge was too un-informed to even realize what her injunction did.


Monday, October 11, 2010

TV Sucks

I have spent the last week on bed rest for the most part, lying flat on my back to try and stop my nose from bleeding me dry.

So I have been forced to watch ALOT of TV. Basic Cable. Not quite as bad as straight over-the-air, but almost. I have discovered one thing that I am certain of; we need a Truth in Naming Law.

I have about 60 channels on the cable mini box I have on my bedroom TV, and I'll bet I have only about 30 different stations, and only about 10 of those are nominally watchable.

Remember A&E? Arts and Entertainment? Mostly crime reality. Nothing arty or even remotely entertaining.

Bravo? Remember when it was ballet and live plays? Mostly reality crime drama. I think; I never really spent more than 5 seconds there, but it looked an awful lot like A&E.

History Channel? Explain to me why a dog cheap reality series like Swamp People or Ice Road Truckers is on the History Channel? Pawn Stars I don't really mind; they do tend to cover some facet of history, but I would still rather have a 10 part Civil War documentary than Pawn Stars or American Pickers, especially when I have 7 uninterrupted days of lying flat on my back.

I think I counter 14 separate sports channels, including one dedicated completely to Golf. GOLF? A sport so flippin' boring you can fall asleep PLAYING it has its own flippin' CHANNEL!?!?!?!

The Learning Channel used to be decent too. Now apparently all people want to learn about is prisons, clutter and I swear this last week I saw the same woman give birth about 14 times.

You know what my standard was for not switching off of a channel while I was surfing? If I saw the GEICO guy. Not the gecko, the Guy. "Can GEICO really save you 15% on car insurance? Is a Bird in the Hand worth Two in the Bush?"

Now that right there is what I call ENTERTAINMENT!

Thank God I had my DVD collection.

Especially my 42 John Wayne movies.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Bursting The Housing Bubble Myth

I was out surfing this morning and ran into this, another blogspot to find the sage and cogent writing of Sippican Cottage.

And as usual, he is dead on the money. The commenter's are a fairly competent bunch as well.

Until the 1990s your home was not a short term investment piggy bank. You bought a house and took out a mortgage because you could build equity over a long term- 10 to 15 years usually- and building that equity was a hedge for retirement.

Then all of the sudden your house would increase 20% in value (for no real apparent reason), and folks would strip that equity out of their homes and spend it. Encouraged by two things; free money tax encouragements and the lemming-like follow the Jones over the cliff instant gratification society.

Why did the government encourage spending yourself into debt? Because our economy has been based on consumerism since the end of the Cold War. We don't make things in this country and sell them to others; we employ each other by swapping goods we bought from China (on credit) for money we borrowed from China, back and forth, each time hoping we could make enough on THIS transaction to get us out of the debt we were incurring on both ends.

Guess what?

Didn't work, did it?

Nothing is worth more than somebody will pay for it. The problem with housing became that people were not spending their own money. They didn't care what they paid for a house when they spent your money for it. And since the loss was yours when they walked away, they didn't care if they did that either, and walked away from the debt in droves.

Now we can either bail out the homeowners with government (Chinese borrowed) money; bail out the lenders with government (Chinese borrowed) money, or allow the entire financial structure of this country's (and a decent portion of the western world's) to collapse.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But this is why I was in favor of the original TARP bailout 2 years ago. The original program was to relieve the banks of their worst defaulted properties, allowing them to liquidize these troubled assets and let the Federal Government hold them until they regained some worth.

But somewhere between the stated purpose of the bill and the spending of the money we got shafted. The Feds just gave the money away to their buddies, who donated large portions back to the elected officials who gave them billions.

It was not a housing bubble; it was a government bubble.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Have you Ever Seen Dirty Jobs?

I found this on Instapundit this morning.

The first 8 minutes or so talk about the castration of sheep; the last half gets a little more esoteric. How many times have heard someone talk about Greek philosophy and sheep castration in the same sentence?

But Mike has the same idea that I do. Hard work is what built this country. Why don't we encourage more young people to do a little of it?

Its almost axiomatic that there are no great hereditary fortunes in this country. Its because the first generation makes it, the second generation conserves it and the third generation squanders it.

Gen 1 worked hard to amass that fortune; sometimes starting off in a very physical occupation and working long physical hours. Gen 2, never being forced to earn what they are spending, doesn't squander, but they also don't know the value of RISK, and don't grow he fortune. Gen 3, never having saw the fortune being built, has no concept of its worth, takes there ownership of wealth as a birthright, and promptly spends without thought of earning. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but I can probably name more followers off the top of my head than you can exceptions.

How does this equate to the lack of expertise in hard work today?

Well, we are the third generation. Not physically, but metaphorically. We enjoy the fruits of the prior generations, but we haven't worked to build the country; we didn't conserve what we were given, and we sure haven't worked to earn what we've spent.

Through regulation and over education we have driven manufacturing from this country, and we have not yet even begun to pay the price for its loss.

Grant didn't win the Civil War by out managing or out maneuvering Lee; he won by out manufacturing him. For every cannon Lee destroyed, Grant was able to field 2 more, and have them delivered quickly by railroad. the more agrarian South could do what the industrial North could; hence we all speak Yankee now.

The Great War wasn't won by military strategy; it was won by American production, just like WWII was. Who ever can replace a lost element fastest wins. If you replace every two soldiers with one, how long until you can no longer fight?

And that is what we have been doing for 40 years; replacing every two manufacturing jobs lost to other countries with one new one. Because we have trained our young, collectively, that dirty work is for people who are less than ideal. You are somehow 'substandard' if you are forced to work with your hands.

My Dad worked with his hands his entire life, and could also quote Greek poets. Working with your hands is not a sign of stupidity; not being able to work with your hands is.