I read an interesting editorial at The Truth about Cars titled, "In Defense of: The Big Three":
I’d just slipped the nozzle into my Cadillac XLR-V. A dark Merc SL550 rolled up, its driver eyeing my Bowling Green Batmobile. As he busied himself with the credit card ritual, every few seconds his eyes darted sideways to the Caddy. “Mind if I look inside?” He sat behind the wheel, running his fingers across the interior surfaces. “Nice,” he pronounced. “Comfortable. And it’s easy to see out. There isn’t as much storage as my SL, but I’d be OK with that.” As he exited the XLR-V, he issued his verdict: “I wish I had the courage.”
“It’s been completely reliable,” I assured the SL guy, figuring he was wary of GM’s reputation for mechanical “mishaps.” “I’ve had it for over 23,000 miles without any problems.”
“That’s not what I meant,” he said. “I wish I had the courage to buy a car I’d have to explain to my friends. I love the style; I really admire it. But no one would understand if I bought a Cadillac. You have more guts than me.”
After that anecdote, the editorial goes into various reasons to consider buying domestic when shopping for your next car, some of them better than others.
Disclaimer: I drive a domestic. In fact, I've been driving a domestic of some sort since 1998. Here's a quick rundown of the cars:
1994 Dodge Shadow 2.2L (purchased in '98, sold in '03): Had 73k miles on it when I got it, 112k miles on it when I sold it for a third of what I bought it for five years later. The car didn't run half the time, though much of this was my fault - I didn't have the time, money, or inclination to take decent care of this car. That said, it was underpowered (how Dodge got away with selling an engine they threw together for the original K-Car back in '81 in a '94 is beyond me), didn't get particularly good gas mileage (22 city, 28 highway), was noisy, and routinely developed various leaks. My personal favorite was the valve cover gasket. That said, it did teach me a lot about how to fix a car - the engine compartment was surprisingly spacious. It also could haul a lot of stuff, thanks to the fold-down rear seat, which came in handy whenever I moved into or out of my dorm room.
1994 Chrysler Concorde (donated to me by my Grandma in '03, donated by me to my ex-wife a few months later when we got divorced): Great car. The ex still drives it. However, the paint is getting dull and faded and the trim is falling apart. The power windows barely work on it anymore. Much of this is because the ex is ignoring it, as a single mother with a four-year-old would be inclined to do, or so I hope.
1989 Mercury Cougar (donated to me by my ex's folks in '03, sold in '04): This car made me miss the Shadow. Within the first week of driving it, it began to leak oil from the oil sender unit on to the engine block. That it happened on the way to San Diego didn't help. This was only the tip of the iceberg, however...
- The regulator on the alternator went out, causing the electronic dash to either get insanely bright or impossibly dim.
- The driver side door hinge became weak, causing the door to sag.
- I became so adept at re-attaching the glass window to the power window motor unit that a friend of mine and I did it at the side of the road in under five minutes. Failing to do this would cause the window to sag into the door frame if I accidentally forgot that the window didn't work.
- The car started burning coolant at higher RPMs. It only had 80k miles on it.
I was thankful to get $600 for it.
1990 Chevrolet Lumina (purchased in '04, wrecked in '05): This, sadly, is probably one of the better cars I've owned. I say "sadly" because it's really not saying much. That said, it was pretty reliable. I bought it for $800 from a non-profit who would've been thankful to get half that, took it into the shop to replace the power steering pump that compelled the original owner to donate it to charity in the first place, and proceeded to drive it until I drove it into a concrete wall. The only problem I had with it, mechanically speaking, was a pernicious coolant leak that I eventually found out was coming from a hose at the bottom of the engine. Seeing as it was 14 years old when I got it, I wasn't going to complain. That said...
- The car did not have a trip meter. Seriously.
- The car did not have a temperature gauge. It did have an idiot light.
- The plastic attachment on the driver's side door that covered the power windows kept falling off.
- It needed regular brake jobs in the worst possible way. I drove that thing about 30k miles before I wrecked it and I had to change the brakes three times because the rotors kept warping. Apparently, the one area that Chevy didn't go cheap on was putting all-disc brakes on the car, which was revolutionary at the time. Unfortunately, they found a way to cheapen even that and made them too small. Oops!
Though it was a good car and was reasonably mechanically sound, everything inside of it made me want to cringe. No trip meter? What, was the extra $3 too much? No temperature gauge? Huh? My friend's Ford Tempo was more refined than this thing.
1976 Plymouth Fury (purchased in '05, donated back in '05): After wrecking the Lumina, I needed a car in the worst possible way. The same non-profit that sold me the Lumina had this old Fury that appeared in decent shape - almost no rust on the body (a little at one of the corners, but nothing serious) and the engine ran. How much, I asked? $200. Sold.
Wow.
If you weren't old enough (like me) to understand precisely how we got to the point that people need to write articles about why people should consider domestics, find an old '70s American car. It will show you everything you ever needed to know about why people bought Japanese. Simply put, it was out of desperation. Where to begin with this thing...
- This car was almost as wide as it was long (and it was plenty wide), yet it had almost no space in the back seat and there was surprisingly little room in the trunk. Apparently, most of the space on this body type was taken by the fuel tank (all 22 gallons of it), which fed the 360 CID V8 under the hood. Coincidentally, that 360 is the same displacement used by large Dodge Ram trucks.
- The car must've weighed a ton. Everything was steel. Yet, despite that, the tie rods on it were no thicker than the ones on the Lumina. This would probably explain why the Fury never drove straight.
- It was gutless, but don't blame the engine. Chrysler apparently thought it'd be fun to put a 2.4 rear axle on the thing, probably so it had a fighting chance to squeak out the 16 MPG I got out of it. The gear ratios didn't help; the poor thing was geared to lug its way on to the freeway, after which it would find its power band. I think my Dakota could out-run and out-accelerate it, and I have a V6 in it... provided I kept the contest under 70. That car had some guts once you got it over 70.
- Before I got the car registered, I was pulled over three times over the course of a month. I had my temporary registration sticker in the right spot; however, there's apparently something about driving a gigantic baby blue beater in Reno that convinces that cops that you're worth investigating.
Honestly, the only redeeming feature about this car was that it was so irredeemable that it was almost cool. Almost. One day, about a month after I got it, I started the car up to get it warmed up, at which point I started hearing a new clacking noise from the engine compartment. A quick trip to the mechanic revealed what I already knew - the valves were going. I was done. It was still cheaper than renting a car, though. That said, the entire design was abhorrent. It was big, but had no room. When I had passengers, someone would usually just sit in the middle of the bench seat up front. Then again, unlike my Dakota, there was room up there for three people to sit comfortably, even if they were on the "beefier" side.
No, it didn't have an 8-track player. I was sorely disappointed.
1993 Dodge Dakota (donated from my grandma in '06, still driving): This is my current ride. My dear, sweet grandma donated it to me with 32,000 miles on it, a fresh coat of paint, a spray-on "Rhino Lining" bed liner, and rust in the coolant tank. I have had my fair share of problems with it, mostly owing to me putting 35k miles every year on a truck that had 32k miles on it when I got it after 13 years of service - most of the wheel seals have been replaced and I had the transfer case rebuilt after a leak in it dumped all of the lubricant in there. I also flushed the radiator, only to find that it was the rust that was keeping it together, so it now has a new radiator in there. Past that, though, the engine has been pretty solid, if not terribly remarkable. The plastic is a little cheap in there - you can tell where some of it is cracking by the glove box. But, it's easy to clean (small cabin, vinyl floors), easy to fix, and it's paid for, so I'm not complaining.
Where am I going with all of this? Glad you asked.
If I bought that '76 Fury when it was new and compared it to the '76 Datsun B210 that a friend of mine had in high school, yeah, I'd be pissed, too. Sure, the Datsun was much smaller and much slower, but at least its design made sense. Everything was laid out halfway cleanly, there was about as much trunk space as you would expect, and, to be honest, it even ran better. When you hit the gas in the B210, you weren't going fast because the B210 was not a fast car. When you hit the gas in the Fury, you weren't going fast because you could tell that somebody, somewhere, decided to chop block your car at the knees. When you sat in the B210, yeah, everything was cheap, but you had reclining seats. When you sat in the Fury, you learned by reading the manual that reclining seats were an option. When you sat in the back of the B210, you didn't have much leg room - it was a small car. When you sat in the back of the Fury, you had the same amount of leg room as the B210. Huh? So, yeah, if I was alive and buying cars in the '70s, you bet your ass I'd hate domestics with the fury of a thousand suns (pardon the expression), and I'm not about to begrudge anyone else that feels the same way. American cars were crap - no, they were worse than crap, and that's why the Japanese did so well. My ex-step-dad's old 1980 Subaru GL was put together better than the Fury, and, to be honest, better than any American car from 1980 I've seen, and it was the cheapest car in America at the time.
That's why people started to buy Japanese.
If people are going to buy American, Detroit needs to find a way to take a page from Japan and build better cars than the Japanese, and build them cheaper. That's why Hyundai is selling so many cars suddenly. Unfortunately, we have management in charge of these companies that would rather call reclining seats and trip meters "options" than build better cars, and we have union workers that see the writing on the wall and are trying to milk their employers for everything they're worth before management does the entire operation in. You want union workers to take lower wages and benefits? Prove to them it's for a better cause, not for more of these.
I love American cars. My next car will hopefully be an American car. However, considering the crap that's come from this country in the past, and considering the crap that's coming from our manufacturers now, I don't blame others if they decide, rationally and reasonably, that they don't even want to look our way.
Can you blame them?
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
No argument here.
Via Instapundit, a couple of articles from former Big-L Libertarians... and I couldn't agree more. An excerpt from Stephen Green:
I stopped voting Libertarian for local candidates, leaving lots of blanks on my ballot. Next year, I’m not sure which party I’ll support for President, much less which candidate. From here, it looks as if the Republicans have become wrong and corrupt, the Democrats are stupid and corrupt, and the Libertarians have gone plain crazy.
I'd like to follow that up with a personal anecdote. For the first couple of years that I was in college, I was just going through the motions - I didn't get involved in much, I barely tried in my coursework, and I just wasn't focused. Consequently, when I stopped going to class in 2000, I didn't think I was missing all that much. After two years of working retail (lousy hours, worse wages), though, I began to realize that the best I could hope for with my education and experience was just more of the same, and it scared the crap out of me. I wasn't interested in topping out at $35k/year, working 60-70 hours a week, and dealing with hostile customers day in and day out. I had dreams, damn it. So, I went back to school. This time, though, I was going to do it right - I was going to get involved.
This was mid-2002, about a year after 9/11.
One thing that I always wanted to get involved in was politics, and I couldn't stand either of the major parties. I didn't like (and still don't) the Democratic proclivity towards tax-and-spend. I didn't like (and still don't) the religious baggage of the Republican platform. I needed a third way.
Cue the Libertarian Party.
It was great, and the thought process went quite similar to Mr. Green's:
Being a Libertarian was hard work, but I set right at it. I even went so far as to read the entire party platform. Pro-choice? Right on! Free trade? Hell, yes! Privatize all the schools? Start with mine! Abolish that Social Security Ponzi scheme? I was never going to see a dime, anyway! Bring all our troops home from Europe and Japan and South Korea and everywhere else and close half our embassies and cut defense spending at least in half and forget about enforcing freedom of the seas? Whoa, Nelly! “But,” I rationalized, “they don’t really mean all that stuff. A Libertarian president wouldn’t be that naive.”
I actually did one better - I thought I could change that from the inside. Yeah, their foreign policy was a little naive, but platforms can change. It's a small party. How hard could it be? So, I joined the Campus Libertarians. I started attending meetings with the Washoe County Libertarians. I even started attending meetings with an anti-PATRIOT Act coalition - yeah, I wanted a strong foreign policy, and I wanted to stop domestic terrorists, but I sure as heck didn't want to throw our rights down the toilet in the process.
It didn't take long for me to start seeing some problems. The first issue was local - ReTRAC. Reno had a very serious problem that had been an issue since the 1930's - there were trains running directly through downtown. Downtown is the heart of Reno's tourist economy - having trains regularly run through an area of heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic is a big problem, to put it lightly. Having trains run next to hotels at night can be a problem if you plan on sleeping in those hotels. Due to some unfortunate zoning decisions, most of the casino-based tourist sector was crammed in an area within three miles of the train tracks, so moving the tourist sector wasn't economical - even if it could be done, it would have gutted downtown, leaving it an urban wasteland. Many solutions had been considered over nearly 70 years. As early as the 1930's, Reno considered moving the train tracks out of town - this was deemed too expensive and failed. Every other project considered since that time suffered the same fate. Meanwhile, the problem was only getting worse. More people were flooding the area. Reno itself was growing. Traffic was getting worse. Downtown Reno was becoming a disaster. Locals didn't want to go there - even if there was anything for locals to do there, which there wasn't, it was far too difficult and inconvenient to get around. Why go somewhere where, if you hit the area at the wrong time, you'd be stuck for up to fifteen minutes while a freight train passes? Meanwhile, many of the more marginal casinos downtown were closing, and they weren't being replaced by anything, leaving blighted, abandoned buildings everywhere. Something had to be done, and if anything was ever going to be done with downtown, the first thing that had to get fixed was the trains. This is where ReTRAC came in.
ReTRAC is a giant concrete-lined trench dug in the same location as the original train lines. It drops the trains approximately 30 feet, keeping the noise out and the people away from the trains. Traffic would be able to move freely, pedestrians wouldn't have to fear for their safety, and the trains wouldn't have to blow cautionary whistles through town. There was one problem, though - it was going to be expensive.
At the time, it wasn't particularly popular around town - if a majority of people in Reno wanted the trench, it would've been a very slim one. Meanwhile, the railroads offered some money for construction for a trench, but there were two catches - construction had to start soon, and it had to be a trench. Moving the trains wasn't going to fix the problem; with the way Reno was (and still is) growing, there weren't many places for the trains to get moved to, and any place they moved them would start experiencing the same problems in a few years anyways. Some people wanted either some underpasses or some overpasses, which would have solved the traffic problem but would've been an aesthetic nightmare and would have done little for the noise.
From where I was sitting, the trench looked like an expensive but necessary solution. I asked the local Libertarians what they thought. They didn't like it, which was not surprising. I understood why. It was going to be expensive and much of it was going to be taxpayer funded. So, I asked them what they thought the solution to the problem was. Should they move the tracks? No way - that would almost certainly require eminent domain. Should they build bridges or overpasses? No way - that would require taxpayer money. Ultimately, no matter what solution should be used, it was a "downtown problem, and downtown should pay for it".
Right off the bat, I saw some pretty serious problems with this logic. First off, it wasn't just downtown Reno or customers of business down there that would benefit from it - anybody that went through downtown would be better for it. This included employees of downtown casinos, university students, anybody needing to use either of the nearby hospitals, or anybody using the city bus system. Secondly, a quick look around downtown made it quite clear that there was no way enough money could come from there to pay for anything - half of the businesses didn't even have serviceable paint jobs, and the other half were empty. Worse yet, that wasn't going to change unless something could be done to improve access to the area, which would be impossible with freight trains blocking traffic throughout the day. So, I became the only Libertarian in Washoe County to think the train trench was a good idea.
This alone didn't bother me. I understood that the train trench was against Libertarian philosophy and dogma - as far as I was concerned, it was the exception that proved the rule. If City Council didn't restrict zoning back in the 1950's, there wouldn't be a bunch of casinos by the tracks anyways - from where I was sitting, the city made the mess through excessive government interference, so it was going to take some action to get it cleaned up. Sometimes, cleaning something up requires more than just not making a mess - if you have dishes scattered through your house, it's not sufficient to decide to not scatter any additional dishes. You're going to have to pick them up and carry them to the sink. From where I was sitting, the train trench was in that vein.
Then came Iraq.
Most of the local Libertarians I was talking to weren't big fans of our involvement in Afghanistan, arguing that, if we just left the world alone, the world would leave us alone. I'd regularly point out that the United States had tried that in the past, and that such an approach had already led to two World Wars that we stumbled into half-prepared and almost too late to make a difference. We'd smile and nod at each other as each side understood where the other side was coming from, but not really agreeing with each other.
Then, Bush invaded Iraq.
I figured we made the mess in Iraq, so the least we can do is clean it up. If Iraq had WMDs, it was probably because we sold them to Iraq so they could use them against Iran. Besides, we were already there anyways, with no-fly zones and sanctions that, in conjunction with some epically corrupt leadership, was absolutely crushing the people there. So, let's put a stop to it - invade Iraq, kick the old leaders out, and see if we can't get something more positive going there.
The Libertarian Party, locally and nationally, felt very different.
Before we even fired a shot, many of the local Libertarians were preparing anti-war protests around town and declaring that "it's all about the oil". They started screaming that, if they simply spoke up more before the invasion of Afghanistan, Bush wouldn't have been "emboldened" enough to invade Iraq in the first place. Meanwhile, they argued, what was our military doing overseas in the first place?
That's when they lost me, and, by the looks of things, countless others who would love to support the Libertarian Party if they weren't completely insane regarding foreign policy. I could understand them not wanting to invade Iraq and not supporting the invasion once it happened - considering how things were there up until very recently, it would have been a rational decision. But, when they claimed that the reason 9/11 happened was because we wouldn't leave the world alone... I didn't buy that, and still don't. Heck, when I play FreeCiv, I try to keep to myself and focus on technology and industry, yet my neighbors will demand favors from me and attack me without provocation - if that dynamic is obvious enough to put it in a computer game, how could it not be obvious to an entire political party?
So, it is with great sadness that I also list myself as one of the disenfranchised libertarians. Some day, I hope an organization will exist that speaks for myself and others like myself, representing our common interests so people will realize that, yes, they do need to listen to us. Maybe I'll be the one that creates it. Until then, though, I'll be another individual voice screaming into the cacophony.
I stopped voting Libertarian for local candidates, leaving lots of blanks on my ballot. Next year, I’m not sure which party I’ll support for President, much less which candidate. From here, it looks as if the Republicans have become wrong and corrupt, the Democrats are stupid and corrupt, and the Libertarians have gone plain crazy.
I'd like to follow that up with a personal anecdote. For the first couple of years that I was in college, I was just going through the motions - I didn't get involved in much, I barely tried in my coursework, and I just wasn't focused. Consequently, when I stopped going to class in 2000, I didn't think I was missing all that much. After two years of working retail (lousy hours, worse wages), though, I began to realize that the best I could hope for with my education and experience was just more of the same, and it scared the crap out of me. I wasn't interested in topping out at $35k/year, working 60-70 hours a week, and dealing with hostile customers day in and day out. I had dreams, damn it. So, I went back to school. This time, though, I was going to do it right - I was going to get involved.
This was mid-2002, about a year after 9/11.
One thing that I always wanted to get involved in was politics, and I couldn't stand either of the major parties. I didn't like (and still don't) the Democratic proclivity towards tax-and-spend. I didn't like (and still don't) the religious baggage of the Republican platform. I needed a third way.
Cue the Libertarian Party.
It was great, and the thought process went quite similar to Mr. Green's:
Being a Libertarian was hard work, but I set right at it. I even went so far as to read the entire party platform. Pro-choice? Right on! Free trade? Hell, yes! Privatize all the schools? Start with mine! Abolish that Social Security Ponzi scheme? I was never going to see a dime, anyway! Bring all our troops home from Europe and Japan and South Korea and everywhere else and close half our embassies and cut defense spending at least in half and forget about enforcing freedom of the seas? Whoa, Nelly! “But,” I rationalized, “they don’t really mean all that stuff. A Libertarian president wouldn’t be that naive.”
I actually did one better - I thought I could change that from the inside. Yeah, their foreign policy was a little naive, but platforms can change. It's a small party. How hard could it be? So, I joined the Campus Libertarians. I started attending meetings with the Washoe County Libertarians. I even started attending meetings with an anti-PATRIOT Act coalition - yeah, I wanted a strong foreign policy, and I wanted to stop domestic terrorists, but I sure as heck didn't want to throw our rights down the toilet in the process.
It didn't take long for me to start seeing some problems. The first issue was local - ReTRAC. Reno had a very serious problem that had been an issue since the 1930's - there were trains running directly through downtown. Downtown is the heart of Reno's tourist economy - having trains regularly run through an area of heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic is a big problem, to put it lightly. Having trains run next to hotels at night can be a problem if you plan on sleeping in those hotels. Due to some unfortunate zoning decisions, most of the casino-based tourist sector was crammed in an area within three miles of the train tracks, so moving the tourist sector wasn't economical - even if it could be done, it would have gutted downtown, leaving it an urban wasteland. Many solutions had been considered over nearly 70 years. As early as the 1930's, Reno considered moving the train tracks out of town - this was deemed too expensive and failed. Every other project considered since that time suffered the same fate. Meanwhile, the problem was only getting worse. More people were flooding the area. Reno itself was growing. Traffic was getting worse. Downtown Reno was becoming a disaster. Locals didn't want to go there - even if there was anything for locals to do there, which there wasn't, it was far too difficult and inconvenient to get around. Why go somewhere where, if you hit the area at the wrong time, you'd be stuck for up to fifteen minutes while a freight train passes? Meanwhile, many of the more marginal casinos downtown were closing, and they weren't being replaced by anything, leaving blighted, abandoned buildings everywhere. Something had to be done, and if anything was ever going to be done with downtown, the first thing that had to get fixed was the trains. This is where ReTRAC came in.
ReTRAC is a giant concrete-lined trench dug in the same location as the original train lines. It drops the trains approximately 30 feet, keeping the noise out and the people away from the trains. Traffic would be able to move freely, pedestrians wouldn't have to fear for their safety, and the trains wouldn't have to blow cautionary whistles through town. There was one problem, though - it was going to be expensive.
At the time, it wasn't particularly popular around town - if a majority of people in Reno wanted the trench, it would've been a very slim one. Meanwhile, the railroads offered some money for construction for a trench, but there were two catches - construction had to start soon, and it had to be a trench. Moving the trains wasn't going to fix the problem; with the way Reno was (and still is) growing, there weren't many places for the trains to get moved to, and any place they moved them would start experiencing the same problems in a few years anyways. Some people wanted either some underpasses or some overpasses, which would have solved the traffic problem but would've been an aesthetic nightmare and would have done little for the noise.
From where I was sitting, the trench looked like an expensive but necessary solution. I asked the local Libertarians what they thought. They didn't like it, which was not surprising. I understood why. It was going to be expensive and much of it was going to be taxpayer funded. So, I asked them what they thought the solution to the problem was. Should they move the tracks? No way - that would almost certainly require eminent domain. Should they build bridges or overpasses? No way - that would require taxpayer money. Ultimately, no matter what solution should be used, it was a "downtown problem, and downtown should pay for it".
Right off the bat, I saw some pretty serious problems with this logic. First off, it wasn't just downtown Reno or customers of business down there that would benefit from it - anybody that went through downtown would be better for it. This included employees of downtown casinos, university students, anybody needing to use either of the nearby hospitals, or anybody using the city bus system. Secondly, a quick look around downtown made it quite clear that there was no way enough money could come from there to pay for anything - half of the businesses didn't even have serviceable paint jobs, and the other half were empty. Worse yet, that wasn't going to change unless something could be done to improve access to the area, which would be impossible with freight trains blocking traffic throughout the day. So, I became the only Libertarian in Washoe County to think the train trench was a good idea.
This alone didn't bother me. I understood that the train trench was against Libertarian philosophy and dogma - as far as I was concerned, it was the exception that proved the rule. If City Council didn't restrict zoning back in the 1950's, there wouldn't be a bunch of casinos by the tracks anyways - from where I was sitting, the city made the mess through excessive government interference, so it was going to take some action to get it cleaned up. Sometimes, cleaning something up requires more than just not making a mess - if you have dishes scattered through your house, it's not sufficient to decide to not scatter any additional dishes. You're going to have to pick them up and carry them to the sink. From where I was sitting, the train trench was in that vein.
Then came Iraq.
Most of the local Libertarians I was talking to weren't big fans of our involvement in Afghanistan, arguing that, if we just left the world alone, the world would leave us alone. I'd regularly point out that the United States had tried that in the past, and that such an approach had already led to two World Wars that we stumbled into half-prepared and almost too late to make a difference. We'd smile and nod at each other as each side understood where the other side was coming from, but not really agreeing with each other.
Then, Bush invaded Iraq.
I figured we made the mess in Iraq, so the least we can do is clean it up. If Iraq had WMDs, it was probably because we sold them to Iraq so they could use them against Iran. Besides, we were already there anyways, with no-fly zones and sanctions that, in conjunction with some epically corrupt leadership, was absolutely crushing the people there. So, let's put a stop to it - invade Iraq, kick the old leaders out, and see if we can't get something more positive going there.
The Libertarian Party, locally and nationally, felt very different.
Before we even fired a shot, many of the local Libertarians were preparing anti-war protests around town and declaring that "it's all about the oil". They started screaming that, if they simply spoke up more before the invasion of Afghanistan, Bush wouldn't have been "emboldened" enough to invade Iraq in the first place. Meanwhile, they argued, what was our military doing overseas in the first place?
That's when they lost me, and, by the looks of things, countless others who would love to support the Libertarian Party if they weren't completely insane regarding foreign policy. I could understand them not wanting to invade Iraq and not supporting the invasion once it happened - considering how things were there up until very recently, it would have been a rational decision. But, when they claimed that the reason 9/11 happened was because we wouldn't leave the world alone... I didn't buy that, and still don't. Heck, when I play FreeCiv, I try to keep to myself and focus on technology and industry, yet my neighbors will demand favors from me and attack me without provocation - if that dynamic is obvious enough to put it in a computer game, how could it not be obvious to an entire political party?
So, it is with great sadness that I also list myself as one of the disenfranchised libertarians. Some day, I hope an organization will exist that speaks for myself and others like myself, representing our common interests so people will realize that, yes, they do need to listen to us. Maybe I'll be the one that creates it. Until then, though, I'll be another individual voice screaming into the cacophony.
Monday, October 22, 2007
A Gutsy Detour
Time to talk tech for a bit.
As I may or may not have mentioned in the past, I wiped my laptop (Compaq V6000Z) and threw Ubuntu Feisty Fawn (7.04) on a while back. It wasn't painless - apparently, Compaq laptops and open-source operating systems in general don't speak well, a point driven home when PC-BSD flat out refused to install. However, thanks to Ubuntu's wonderful documentation, I was eventually able to work my way through it, learning a fair amount about wireless drivers and APCI in the process.
Fast forward a few months... to last weekend.
Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon (7.10) came out, and I was excited for two reasons:
1. It was supposed to have a more power-efficient kernel, which would improve battery life.
2. It would actually recognize when I plug in different monitors without me having to reboot, which would be handy for presentations.
So, I went ahead and clicked the "Upgrade" button. Big oops... and I wasn't alone. In my case, it wouldn't even boot without some chicanery through Grub (it kept the old kernel installed, so I was able to boot off of it - not ideal, to put it mildly). Others were slightly luckier, being able to get most things working, provided you didn't care about sound. Considering how well Linux has run on my laptop thus far, none of this was terribly surprising.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, this isn't a knock on Linux. First off, other distributions might work better on my laptop than Ubuntu - one of these days, I may even explore some of them. Secondly, HP doesn't offer any support for Linux for my laptop, which isn't surprising; it's a basic consumer-grade laptop. It's nothing fancy and I got it used for $400. That said, I generally prefer new versions of operating systems to run better than old versions, so I'd be lying if I said I was terribly thrilled at the moment.
Thus endeth my techy rant.
As I may or may not have mentioned in the past, I wiped my laptop (Compaq V6000Z) and threw Ubuntu Feisty Fawn (7.04) on a while back. It wasn't painless - apparently, Compaq laptops and open-source operating systems in general don't speak well, a point driven home when PC-BSD flat out refused to install. However, thanks to Ubuntu's wonderful documentation, I was eventually able to work my way through it, learning a fair amount about wireless drivers and APCI in the process.
Fast forward a few months... to last weekend.
Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon (7.10) came out, and I was excited for two reasons:
1. It was supposed to have a more power-efficient kernel, which would improve battery life.
2. It would actually recognize when I plug in different monitors without me having to reboot, which would be handy for presentations.
So, I went ahead and clicked the "Upgrade" button. Big oops... and I wasn't alone. In my case, it wouldn't even boot without some chicanery through Grub (it kept the old kernel installed, so I was able to boot off of it - not ideal, to put it mildly). Others were slightly luckier, being able to get most things working, provided you didn't care about sound. Considering how well Linux has run on my laptop thus far, none of this was terribly surprising.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, this isn't a knock on Linux. First off, other distributions might work better on my laptop than Ubuntu - one of these days, I may even explore some of them. Secondly, HP doesn't offer any support for Linux for my laptop, which isn't surprising; it's a basic consumer-grade laptop. It's nothing fancy and I got it used for $400. That said, I generally prefer new versions of operating systems to run better than old versions, so I'd be lying if I said I was terribly thrilled at the moment.
Thus endeth my techy rant.
Friday, October 19, 2007
The undead plank of my platform
It's been a while since I've lucidly explained a plank on my platform, and by "a while", I mean, "I can't remember the last time I was lucid about anything". Thankfully, this article snapped me back into attention, realizing that no candidate has voiced a clear, definitive policy regarding zombies. Not even Stephen Colbert, who is normally a visionary in such matters. So, I will take a stand, right here and now, and elucidate my stance on zombies.
Zombies are a concern in America, and understandably so. They take our jobs, bite our women, eat our children, and are considered a threat to the American way of life by many in this country. I recognize and respect that stance. That said, zombies are here to stay, despite previous attempts from generations past to remove them from this country. Consequently, I am a firm believer in comprehensive zombie management reform, which should take the following form:
1. All zombies must register and identify themselves with all appropriate public agencies. Ideally, all zombies would carry an identification card, and all zombie dental records would be stored in a centralized database accessible to all local, state, and national law enforcement agencies.
2. Zombies that attempt to reproduce through biting American citizens will be deported to their home country, which we shall assume is Mexico.
3. Until a zombie has proven that he/she/it can be a productive member of American society by maintaining gainful employment for no less than two years and paying taxes during that time, said zombie will not be eligible for citizenship. All zombies will also have no more than three months upon zombification to become productive members of American society before they are deported to their home country, which, again, shall be assumed to be Mexico.
I believe that this is a fair and humane solution to the zombie problem, addressing the key economic and physical concerns of our citizens as they continue to adjust to life with our zombie neighbors.
Zombies are a concern in America, and understandably so. They take our jobs, bite our women, eat our children, and are considered a threat to the American way of life by many in this country. I recognize and respect that stance. That said, zombies are here to stay, despite previous attempts from generations past to remove them from this country. Consequently, I am a firm believer in comprehensive zombie management reform, which should take the following form:
1. All zombies must register and identify themselves with all appropriate public agencies. Ideally, all zombies would carry an identification card, and all zombie dental records would be stored in a centralized database accessible to all local, state, and national law enforcement agencies.
2. Zombies that attempt to reproduce through biting American citizens will be deported to their home country, which we shall assume is Mexico.
3. Until a zombie has proven that he/she/it can be a productive member of American society by maintaining gainful employment for no less than two years and paying taxes during that time, said zombie will not be eligible for citizenship. All zombies will also have no more than three months upon zombification to become productive members of American society before they are deported to their home country, which, again, shall be assumed to be Mexico.
I believe that this is a fair and humane solution to the zombie problem, addressing the key economic and physical concerns of our citizens as they continue to adjust to life with our zombie neighbors.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
It's not a bug - it's a feature!
More bad news in Iraq - cemetary workers are beginning to feel the pinch as fewer people die.
It's a quagmire!
It's a quagmire!
It's a vast winged conspiracy!
Inspired from Rachel Lucas, I finally realized something. I have dry hands and I had a cold last week. Both of these events were very distressing. Now, however, I see the light as clear as day. It's a conspiracy. The right-wing Judeofascist Busholini-worshipping jackbooted thugs of the right-wing National Republican Socialist Workers Party poisoned my airspace, releasing toxic rhinovirii, impairing my ability to work and deliver truth to power through my blog. Meanwhile, in conjunction with the NKVD-resurrecting Green Party, the forces of Big Blue sallied forth against the ability to experience comfortable humidity, banishing it to the gulag, causing my hands to feel the pain of the oppressed proletariat. Now, my hands are dry, like the failed ideology of the Gaia-worshipping, Sapiens-hating ideology of the left-wing, which is ironic since THEY DID THIS TO ME. Clearly, both wings of Air America are against me. They sense the danger I present to them. They see that I am a Patriot missile of truth, bringing down their dreams.
It's certainly not because I live in a desert and the seasons are changing. Nope.
It's certainly not because I live in a desert and the seasons are changing. Nope.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Busy weekend
The past few days have been rather busy.
Friday: Flew to Salt Lake City to retake my dCAP exam, which work wants me to get so we can start selling Asterisk phone systems. Unfortunately, I failed the test the first time around - I elected to take it midway through an Asterisk boot camp that I attended, figuring that I was doing well in the class. The good news is that I got a free retake, and since the original plan was for me to attend the class and take the test a month or two later, my work isn't out anything and I got some early exposure to the test. Flew back later that night; thanks to a rather long break between the test and my flight home, I decided to purchase the new Stephen Colbert book. I haven't finished reading it yet, but it's quite amusing. I especially enjoyed his rantings on religion.
Saturday & Sunday: Visited my son with my grandma. It was actually a good trip - he was well behaved and I learned that the road to Metropolis is open. That'll give me something to play with next time I'm down there. Can't wait to check it out.
I'm back now, and will hopefully begin posting somewhat regularly this week.
Friday: Flew to Salt Lake City to retake my dCAP exam, which work wants me to get so we can start selling Asterisk phone systems. Unfortunately, I failed the test the first time around - I elected to take it midway through an Asterisk boot camp that I attended, figuring that I was doing well in the class. The good news is that I got a free retake, and since the original plan was for me to attend the class and take the test a month or two later, my work isn't out anything and I got some early exposure to the test. Flew back later that night; thanks to a rather long break between the test and my flight home, I decided to purchase the new Stephen Colbert book. I haven't finished reading it yet, but it's quite amusing. I especially enjoyed his rantings on religion.
Saturday & Sunday: Visited my son with my grandma. It was actually a good trip - he was well behaved and I learned that the road to Metropolis is open. That'll give me something to play with next time I'm down there. Can't wait to check it out.
I'm back now, and will hopefully begin posting somewhat regularly this week.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
I'm late due to Western sabotage!
That's the line I'll use on my boss next time I stroll in late for work. Where'd I get the idea? Robert Mugabe, of course, a saint of a man who can't seem to quite grasp "cause" and "effect". So, let's outline it real quick-like:
YOU HAVE: Productive farmers that produce enough food for your nation that you can actually export food and still meet the needs of your people. Oh, by the way, they're white and they vote for your opposition.
YOU DO: Take their land and give it to people that lack the education to productively farm the land. Divide it into smaller parcels that are individually less economically viable so each farmer has less capital to buy equipment and supplies to continue to farm the land.
-- INSERT WESTERN SABOTAGE HERE --
EFFECT: Your people starve and your economy collapses.
One of those steps isn't necessary. Care to guess which one?
YOU HAVE: Productive farmers that produce enough food for your nation that you can actually export food and still meet the needs of your people. Oh, by the way, they're white and they vote for your opposition.
YOU DO: Take their land and give it to people that lack the education to productively farm the land. Divide it into smaller parcels that are individually less economically viable so each farmer has less capital to buy equipment and supplies to continue to farm the land.
-- INSERT WESTERN SABOTAGE HERE --
EFFECT: Your people starve and your economy collapses.
One of those steps isn't necessary. Care to guess which one?
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Global Warming Day!
I'm posting a lot because I called in sick for work today, and I have to kill my day somehow.
Let's talk global warming.
Rule number one of talking about global warming is:
Don't openly admit that you think that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.
Rule number two of talking about global warming is:
Most people want to live. Consequently, if you start claiming that the Earth would be better off without us, you will be considered a lunatic. This is because nobody will care about the Earth if they're not here to enjoy it. People care about themselves and their families a lot more than they care about a spheroid with a 25,000 mile diameter that was doing a wonderful job of killing our ancestors off until about 150 years ago.
Rule number three about talking about global warming is:
When humans talk, we exhale carbon dioxide, which is widely considered to be a greenhouse gas. When we travel, we usually travel in vehicles that produce a lot of carbon dioxide. Consequently, attempting to solve global warming by traveling to a set destination to talk about global warming is somewhat akin to attempting to solve unwanted teen pregnancies by sending teenagers to clubs and providing them with free alcohol.
Rule number four about talking about global warming is:
When you start making up random buzzwords to discuss your position, expect marketing departments to latch on to them like a rabid pit bull grabbing a six-year-old's leg and start making up their own definitions.
Finally, rule number five about talking about global warming is:
No matter what you say, pro or con, somebody is going to argue with you about it.
That is all.
Let's talk global warming.
Rule number one of talking about global warming is:
Don't openly admit that you think that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.
Rule number two of talking about global warming is:
Most people want to live. Consequently, if you start claiming that the Earth would be better off without us, you will be considered a lunatic. This is because nobody will care about the Earth if they're not here to enjoy it. People care about themselves and their families a lot more than they care about a spheroid with a 25,000 mile diameter that was doing a wonderful job of killing our ancestors off until about 150 years ago.
Rule number three about talking about global warming is:
When humans talk, we exhale carbon dioxide, which is widely considered to be a greenhouse gas. When we travel, we usually travel in vehicles that produce a lot of carbon dioxide. Consequently, attempting to solve global warming by traveling to a set destination to talk about global warming is somewhat akin to attempting to solve unwanted teen pregnancies by sending teenagers to clubs and providing them with free alcohol.
Rule number four about talking about global warming is:
When you start making up random buzzwords to discuss your position, expect marketing departments to latch on to them like a rabid pit bull grabbing a six-year-old's leg and start making up their own definitions.
Finally, rule number five about talking about global warming is:
No matter what you say, pro or con, somebody is going to argue with you about it.
That is all.
For the love of...
Okay, I'm definitely against state-sponsored religion. However, when someone purchases something from the state and they want it customized, why would they not be allowed to put "God" on it?
Please note that the snarky libertarian in me is wondering what government is doing selling anything anyways. This is why government should really do as little as possible, folks - anything that government does is guaranteed to be political. That's the nature of the beast.
Please note that the snarky libertarian in me is wondering what government is doing selling anything anyways. This is why government should really do as little as possible, folks - anything that government does is guaranteed to be political. That's the nature of the beast.
Internet Census
Via Slashdot, it turns out that people in the Information Sciences Institute at USC (the one in Los Angeles, not South Carolina) have pulled off a graphical census of the Internet. Some key points to be aware of, though:
1. It's not complete, and never will be. A lot of devices on public IPs do not respond to pings, so they're not going to have those on their census.
2. There shouldn't be much of anything in the blue parts. I'm kind of curious what all answered there... it looks like they're using an internal Class A subnet for their network. Neat!
I am kind of curious, though - will the companies and entities that picked up all of those public IPs 10-20 years ago eventually resell them, sort of like railroad easements? How much will those IPs be worth, and for how much longer will they be worth anything? Since IPv6 will give us a virtually unlimited number of public IPs and is already supported on Vista, I would think that the time for some of those companies to sell their public IPv4 addresses would be "now", at least if they plan on extracting any value out of them.
1. It's not complete, and never will be. A lot of devices on public IPs do not respond to pings, so they're not going to have those on their census.
2. There shouldn't be much of anything in the blue parts. I'm kind of curious what all answered there... it looks like they're using an internal Class A subnet for their network. Neat!
I am kind of curious, though - will the companies and entities that picked up all of those public IPs 10-20 years ago eventually resell them, sort of like railroad easements? How much will those IPs be worth, and for how much longer will they be worth anything? Since IPv6 will give us a virtually unlimited number of public IPs and is already supported on Vista, I would think that the time for some of those companies to sell their public IPv4 addresses would be "now", at least if they plan on extracting any value out of them.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
It's not hard.
Comparing apples and oranges is apparently not that hard. In fact, they're apparently relatively similar if you run them through a spectrograph.
And people wonder why alternative medicine is so popular...
Via Instapundit, I found this rather disturbing article about doctors interrogating children about the habits of their parents.
One thing I will point out is that this was an editorial, so I'm not sure how accurate this really is. Honestly, a lot of this article seems to be detailing some of the more excessive behaviors of a small group of doctors that view themselves as social vigilantes. That said, being a doctor ranks up there with clergy as far as trust goes and, just as when a clergyman violates the inherent trust of their position, when a doctor does so it's very alarming. Doctors are given intimate details of our lives so that they can best treat us. When they start using that information against us, especially going through our children to do so, it's very disheartening. Unfortunately, as more of these stories percolate, it's only going to make their jobs more difficult and discourage more parents from giving their children decent medical care. After all, if you know that taking your child to the doctor could lead to them being quizzed about your lifestyle, why take the chance that your lifestyle would be acceptable in your doctor's eyes?
One thing I will point out is that this was an editorial, so I'm not sure how accurate this really is. Honestly, a lot of this article seems to be detailing some of the more excessive behaviors of a small group of doctors that view themselves as social vigilantes. That said, being a doctor ranks up there with clergy as far as trust goes and, just as when a clergyman violates the inherent trust of their position, when a doctor does so it's very alarming. Doctors are given intimate details of our lives so that they can best treat us. When they start using that information against us, especially going through our children to do so, it's very disheartening. Unfortunately, as more of these stories percolate, it's only going to make their jobs more difficult and discourage more parents from giving their children decent medical care. After all, if you know that taking your child to the doctor could lead to them being quizzed about your lifestyle, why take the chance that your lifestyle would be acceptable in your doctor's eyes?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Some potpourri
I haven't written much because I haven't come up with much to write about. Since that hasn't immediately changed, without further ado...
- Science and the Islamic world—The quest for rapprochement - a very interesting article and one that's worth reading. The part that amazes me is that, as recent as the 1980s, Islamic "scientists" were discussing angels on a pin problems.
- Proof that political debate has reached a new low. When you're examining a candidate based on her laugh, you've lost it.
- The fundies are getting exciteable. Apparently, failing to adhere to their ideology will lead to them cutting a third path, one that leads to their ideology being guaranteed to lose. Considering the issue at stake, I think it's fair to poke a little fun at their position.
- You know you've failed when Kevin Federline is found to be a better parent than you in a court of law. Wow.
- Apple finally misstepped. Jobs has always been a bit of a control freak, to put it mildly. Unfortunately, it would seem that instinct isn't being tempered as much as it used to be. He needs to remember what made Apple popular again: products that were easier to use and more open than the competition. PlaysForSure only worked with Windows Media Player, something which people weren't fond of - that's why the iPod was wonderful. It could run off of other media players, or at least use MP3s or other ubiquitous formats. Then again, I'm not sure how much of this was Apple's decision and how much of it was AT&T's. Taking a look at my generic LG phone that I have from work, I notice that it has a ton of demos for games and applications, but none of them are inherently useful unless you pay AT&T for them. Consequently, this may be less about Apple's greed and more about AT&T's, though I'm sure they're working hand in hand on this one.
- Putin may decide to make the Russian legislature more powerful, both cementing his power in the short term and improving the democratic process in the long term. It's a win-win!
That's all for now.
- Science and the Islamic world—The quest for rapprochement - a very interesting article and one that's worth reading. The part that amazes me is that, as recent as the 1980s, Islamic "scientists" were discussing angels on a pin problems.
- Proof that political debate has reached a new low. When you're examining a candidate based on her laugh, you've lost it.
- The fundies are getting exciteable. Apparently, failing to adhere to their ideology will lead to them cutting a third path, one that leads to their ideology being guaranteed to lose. Considering the issue at stake, I think it's fair to poke a little fun at their position.
- You know you've failed when Kevin Federline is found to be a better parent than you in a court of law. Wow.
- Apple finally misstepped. Jobs has always been a bit of a control freak, to put it mildly. Unfortunately, it would seem that instinct isn't being tempered as much as it used to be. He needs to remember what made Apple popular again: products that were easier to use and more open than the competition. PlaysForSure only worked with Windows Media Player, something which people weren't fond of - that's why the iPod was wonderful. It could run off of other media players, or at least use MP3s or other ubiquitous formats. Then again, I'm not sure how much of this was Apple's decision and how much of it was AT&T's. Taking a look at my generic LG phone that I have from work, I notice that it has a ton of demos for games and applications, but none of them are inherently useful unless you pay AT&T for them. Consequently, this may be less about Apple's greed and more about AT&T's, though I'm sure they're working hand in hand on this one.
- Putin may decide to make the Russian legislature more powerful, both cementing his power in the short term and improving the democratic process in the long term. It's a win-win!
That's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
