The election is over and I'm very pleased with the results.  There is just one problem.  I want to know what happened to that crazy Hillary supporter that declared, "The Democrats are throwing the election away!  And for what, an inadequate black male?"

The bitch is crazy.

The Phillies have won the World Series, and I can now say I know what unequivocal joy feels like. This has never happened before in my life and I can now die happy. I'm not quite sure what to do with this happiness. When the Eagles lost the Super Bowl, I just watched people wandering the streets not quite sure of what was going on. Now there are about 10,000 people celebrating on Broad Street.  I think I've been smiling non stop for about an hour. The curse of Billy Penn is undisputedly broken!

First I read an article in Autoextremist.com that criticized an article in The New York Times. Then I read the original article in The New York Times. Now I want to kill someone!

The New York Times article is an Op-Ed piece by Kent A. Sepkowitz. He is vice-chairman of medicine at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. The article is about stopping drivers from speeding. So this is clearly a subject he understands (sarcasm). He implies that speed should be blamed for all non-alcohol related accidents and points out that the average car is capable of traveling faster than the average speed limit. His solution is to use "cruise control" to limit speed to 75mph. This not only overlooks the difference between "cruise control" and a "governor", but also overlooks going 75 in a school zone.

The Autoextremist article was written by Peter M. Delorenzo. He started his own website after spending 20 years in the automotive industry. His response was to insult Mr. Sepkowitz and go on some rant about "personal freedoms". This overlooks that driving a car on a public road is a privilege, not a right.

But in reading the reader mail section at Autoextremist, I found a mix of responses. The term "nanny state" was tossed around, but there was one email I did agree with. Here's part of it.

"First, most readers of this site would agree that state licensing requirements in the US are embarassingly, pathetically, dangerously lax. We license teens to drive before their brains have fully established the long-term-cause-and-effect circuitry, and most driver's license "tests" have 3rd-grade level questions and consist of 10 minutes or less on the road.

OTOH, my dad had to take the UK driver's test, which is rightly feared. More than half the applicants fail, and that's after months and sometimes years of practice. The road test takes 30 to 60 minutes, if memory serves, and is grueling. Minor errors count. Don't look in your mirror when merging? Fail. Drift into a road stripe? Fail. Exceed the posted limit by 2 mph? Fail. And so on.

I'm not saying the average Brit driver is significantly better than the average American driver, but s/he clearly understands that driving is a PRIVILEGE--not a birthright. Contrast that with the spate of 18-year-old girls chatting on the phoen who pass me in their Honda Civics at 90 mph--not maliciously, but because they've clearly NEVER looked at those moving things and flashing lights just behind the sterering wheel. So where's the push from "our side" for much, much harder driving tests? For tests every 10 or 20 years for renewals? For tests every 2 to 5 years for drivers 65 and older?"

Clearly this person understands that when a plane crashes and kills all the passengers due to pilot error, you're not supposed to blame Boeing. Now I don't mind a "nanny state" myself, but most of the people like me understand that legislating a cultural change [how people think] would work much better than legislating a law enforcement change [how people act]. Unfortunately we don't know how to change the way people think on a large scale yet. We'll get right back to you as soon as we do.

One of the common complaints I hear that that political parties spend too much time fighting amongst themselves to serve the people that partisan fighting is negatively effecting government. Well I've put some thought into it, and I've decided that that is bull. Legislators are elected because people (people meaning you and me) voted for them. We voted for them because we thought they would best serve our interests. Greedy as that sounds, that's really the only motivation there ever is to vote for someone. Now a lot of people (other than you and me) voted for someone who would best serve their interests and those interests contradict our (you and me) own. If our interests are to take prominence over other people's interests, we need our aforementioned representatives fighting.

This is something I read on a message board the other night and the sheer ignorance of it (grammar and spelling aside) still has me angry.

"our political party system needs to get rid of the democrats, and republican parties, and needs to form the american party, a party that will focus on doing what's best for america, instead of having two parties, that only care about making money for their party."

In a nutshell, this person wants to not only do away with political parties, but replace them with a one party system that "will focus on doing what's best for America". First, even if we abolished political parties as a whole, likeminded individuals will always gravitate together. People (that's everyone) like to be around other persons who agree with them. Let's face it, when everyone agrees with you, it makes you feel smarter. Second, if we abolished the two major parties and replaced them with one party, we would effectively create a dictatorship. You're probably thinking, "That's not a dictatorship if it 'will focus on doing what's best for America.'" A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship.

All dictatorships start out as benevolent. The Soviet Union came to power because the czars were corrupt. Castro came to power because Bautista was corrupt. The problem with only one party is that there's no way to frequently change the people with power. And even if you did impose term limits on the government, there's still a lack of control over the party's leadership. You can control how the government behaves and you can control how the party behaves, but you can't do both at the same time. The best solution is to just focus on making your party the best that it can be, let the other party be the best it can be, and fight it out in government.

Partisan bickering in a democracy is like the engine noise on an airplane. It's constant and monotonous, and you don't have to think about it. But when that noise stops, it means that something has gone terribly wrong.

Indianapolis Motor Speedway is the be-all-end-all of race tracks. That said, what NASCAR did today was an insult. I'm going to put all the blame on NASCAR this time. Goodyear wasn't perfect here, the track wasn't perfect here, but that's no reason to fuck things up so badly. The race was to be 400 miles long. NASCAR threw a caution every 10 laps because the tires wouldn't last longer than 10 laps. That's not a race. That's nursing cars around a track for 4 hours. Don't piss on my foot and tell me it's raining!

I know the track's surface is abrasive. I know Goodyear didn't hold a test this year. But there's a right way and a wrong way to deal with this. A caution every ten laps is not the solution. For instance, an extra practice session could have been held with the softer Pocono tires. I suspect that a softer tire may have rubbered in the track better. Used tires could have been drug around the track to spread extra rubber. You could have just told the teams the tires won't last more than 10 laps and let the "free market" handle it.

Three years ago, more than half the field of the United States Grand Prix boycotted the race because they did not have sufficient tires. The race went on with only 6 cars. It was the greatest farce in the history of racing. This was the second greatest. At least the angry fans at the Formula 1 race were given a full refund.

Goodyear shouldn't have to rely on test sessions to make tires. The whole reason for having multiple cars was so that each body style could give an opinion. NASCAR has eliminated different body styles. Goodyear could just build their own car and test with that. I suppose having a monopoly just makes quality control an unnecessary expense.

Indianapolis Motor Speedway's management should take notice. Events like these soil the name of their track. Paving the track in 2005 was a good move. At the 2004 Indianapolis 500, ground water from under the track started seeping up though cracks in the asphalt. This phenomenon is known as "weepers". The solution was to repave the track. The repaved surface was too rough when the IndyCar Series tested on it and it was diamond ground to remove the bumps. Removing bumps makes a surface abrasive. This is where we get events like this and the 2005 USGP. Even the IndyCars have problems with the abrasive surface. IndyCar problems manifest themselves with excessive marbles, NASCAR problems manifest themselves with a sham of a race, and Formula 1 problems manifest themselves with a boycott. At least the boycott made for some nice political drama.

NASCAR needs to learn to just let these things happen. I'll admit to being a socialist. I think equal opportunity can only be achieved from equal outcome. But racing isn't like the economy. It's a sport. Economic systems need government control to protect the less fortunate. Racing isn't for the less fortunate. If your car can't keep up, build a faster car. NASCAR should stop saying when teams can and cannot change tires, and when one brand's engine is too powerful despite having all the same specifications as any other engine.

My dad taught me that it doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game that matters. Today proved that it's better to forfeit with dignity than to make an ass of yourself.[/rant]

I'm writing this to all Americans as a plea for sanity. For some reason, it seems to be popular to blame the government when things go bad. And that we are locked in an "us against them" battle. I've got some bad news for you, Sunshine. It's your fault!

The United States is a republic. The government of a republic is appointed by the citizens of a republic in a democratic process called "elections". In the event the citizens are unhappy with their government, they are allowed they may elect different government to serve them. So if you find yourself disenfranchised by the government's actions, you have no one to blame but yourself for appointing the wrong government. Now we all make mistakes (I know I have), but when you make a mistake, you're supposed to say, "I'm wrong". You are not supposed to blame your sorrows on a faceless institution and rant about everything being their fault. Are you listening, Lou Dobbs?

I'll admit that the government has done a lot of stupid things lately. But voters had to do some stupid things first. I can show you a few YouTube videos of how West Virginia voters decided their selection in the primary. But I think it's safe to say that they broke down into two factions: those who didn't vote for Obama because he's black, and those who didn't vote for Obama because he's as Muslim (despite the handicap of not actually being a Muslim). I can just as easily refer everyone to 2004 when gay marriage was a more important issue than war or energy.

I'm not saying this because I'm anti-democracy and think that all voters are incompetent. I'm saying this because I'm anti-ignorance. I apologize for my stance on ignorance. I think it stems from my prejudice of the ill-informed. The trouble is finding a way to solve this issue. I can't very well stop people from voting just because I think they're dumb. We would all try to take the time to just remind everyone that they're accountable for the government's actions (good and bad). You can't say, "We landed on the Moon," and "The government ran up a huge debt".

I'd like to end with a quote. In the Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln said, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." We are our own government. Government is how we are to help each other. And we must remember to keep it that way.

I'm not even sure where to start with this piece of crap. But I hate PETA the most so I'll start with them.

People for the "Ethical" Treatment of Animals (PETA for the .01% of you who didn't know) are calling for Eight Belle's jockey, Gabriel Saez, to be suspended. They believe Eight Belles was "doubtlessly injured before the finish". This is part of PETA's actual statement (I warn you, it is insanely stupid):

Now I'm also curious if he felt anything along the way, but if the problem started during the race, we would have seen the horse limping to the finish. If it finished dead last by a wide margin and fell down one quarter of the mile after the finish, then I would suspect the injuries happened during the race. But they didn't happen during the race. It was a freak accident after the finish.

As far as whipping goes, let's pretend that you're a horse. You're already running a long distance, you have a thick hide, a small brain, you weigh 1,000 pounds, and a 100lb. man is hitting your ass with a 2-foot whip. How much pain can you really receive from a person that small hitting you with a whip so short?

It has also come to my attention that some people find horse racing cruel because the horses can't "chose" whether or not to compete. Prior to the race, one of the horses (I believe it was Recapturetheglory) bucked his jockey. To me this is a pretty strong indication that a horse doesn't have to take shit from the jockey.

On that note, I would like to point out that these horses are a product of hundreds of generations of selective breeding and eugenics. They exist solely for this purpose. They literally live to entertain. Race horses are so fragile that if left to roam wild, they'd all die of injuries similar to those of Eight Belles and Barbaro. All we really ask of them is that they run and breed like rabbits. I would compare them to the Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park as described in the Dr. Grant character in the third film, "They are not Dinosaurs. They are genetically engineered theme park monsters, and nothing more." I foresee genetic engineering playing a role in horse racing (and maybe a few other sports) someday. Frankly, these animals are so far removed from other horses, and have had so much influence from humans that I suspect they're already monsters or sorts.

The important thing to remember is that humans selectively bred animals to serve as tools. Dogs have been bred to hunt (or if you're a quarterback in jail for trumped up charges, fight). Cats are used as a means of catching mice. Chickens exist to provide humans with food. I've never heard of wild chickens, have you? Today's cows have been bred to the point where you wouldn't recognize their ancestors. I can only love my pets as much as I love my 10-millimeter wrench. And I'm really attached to that wrench.

Now I'm going to end this blog where I started, PETA. You'll notice I emphasized "ethical" because ethics, like morality, are not absolute. PETA thinks "ethical" and "equal" are one in the same. PETA's co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk, has stated several times that their mission is "total animal liberation." That means no Kentucky Fried Chicken, no Kentucky Derby, no animal products used in medicine (like insulin used to treat diabetes), no service animals (like seeing-eye dogs), no honey (because exploting bees is a terrible sin now), and no pets. In fact, of all the animals that PETA "rescues" two-thirds of them are euthanized just as Eight Belles was. Please, don't listen to PETA; they're batshit crazy.

It would seem the unthinkable has happened. Pennsylvania’s Primary Elections are only a few weeks away, and my vote actually matters. I never thought this would happen. I even found a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article from last year when Governor Rendell said he wanted to move up the primary so Pennsylvania’s would really matter. Well given the outcome of the Florida-Michigan Kerfuffle, April 22 doesn’t sound so bad.

Speaking of the Kerfuffle, I can’t let this go on with out chiming in on it. The Democratic Party established rules to conducting primary elections that these states both agreed to and broke. The Democratic Party (as with the Republican Party) is under no obligation to hold primary elections. Most political parties outside the United States, as well as third parties in the United States, do not hold primary elections in the first place. Their candidates (in almost all races) are hand selected by party officials. Voting in a general election is a right, voting in a primary election is a privilege. If they want to compromise, then let Florida and Michigan send non-voting delegates to the convention, otherwise: shut up!

I have made a decision as to which candidate I will vote for. I am voting for Barrack Obama. Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy resembles Bush Doctrine too much for my taste, and her health care plan (making it mandatory to purchase health insurance) is a joke. There are about 50 million Americans with out health insurance, and I’m willing to bet at least 95% of those people can’t afford private health care. My ideal health care solution is establishing a basic plan supported by a single payer system, and those who wish for more coverage may buy into private health insurance. I used the premise of public schools and private schools as a model.

In the event that Hillary Clinton wins the nomination (God forbid), I will not vote for her. I am not so bitter as to vote for John McCain though. While I understand that his "100 years" remark was about keeping a base in Iraq (ala Germany and South Korea) for 100 years and not fighting insurgents 100 years, I think he’s just as hawkish as Bush.

I’m also not going to stay home on Election Day if I don’t get my way. In the event of a Clinton/McCain election, I will vote for Brian Patrick Moore of Socialist Party USA. Since he probably won’t be on the ballot in Pennsylvania, I’ll vote for him as a write-in candidate. I’ll admit there’s a 99% chance he won’t win the election, but I feel strongly enough about his platform to take the time to vote for someone who doesn’t matter as a way of saying, "I don’t like these other people".