Posts Tagged ‘transportation’

The intersection of humor and politics

 | 

When I first saw this “Government Motors” t-shirt, I loved it immediately. It fits my sense of humor and political view to a T. However, I put off buying it until a couple of days ago. The reason is that I foresaw a potential problem with wearing it.

Namely, I drive a Buick. It’s a 2001, granted, but still, it’s a Buick.

In case the problem isn’t quite clear yet, allow me to continue.

For most if not nearly all introverts, the one thing that will bug us as much as being misunderstood is explaining our thoughts.

Furthermore, I know when I get out of or into my car with that shirt on, most people likely will not care or fail to make the connection. There is also a pretty good chance that some people will get why, in my case, wearing that shirt while owning the car I do is not contradictory. And of course most days I would wear it I won’t run into more than a handful of people near my car, anyway. So, yes, I admit concerning myself over something than probably won’t happen at all is rather silly.

Yet it’s the people who get enough to understand the seeming hypocrisy but not enough to know why it isn’t hypocritical I still want to avoid. And given what you might now about me already, you might understand that even a one in ten thousand chance in dealing with some… genius who thinks they are “calling me out” is worth avoiding.

I can imagine that person being either liberal or conservative, and the conversation going something like this:

Twit: Hey! If you think the government owning GM is so bad, why do you drive a Buick, then?

(Note: The Lefty’s argument would be that ought to support the government take-over because I own a GM car; the right-winger’s would be that owning the car but wearing that shirt makes me a hypocrite… or a commie. He would still be a twit, either way.)

Me: Hmm. Well, let’s see: The car’s obviously older than two years old, right? That would make it older than the bailout. I bought the car in 2007 and GM was taken over in 2008, so I wouldn’t have known about the bailout because it hadn’t happened yet. And for me to get rid of the car just because GM is now mostly owned by the government, especially when I can’t afford to buy another car, would be pretty idiotic. Nice try, thanks for playing.

Now it would be fun to make some guy like that eat his words, but frankly, I would rather avoid him all together. Oh well. I’ll take the 10,000-to-1 shot. The humor factor of the shirt finally became too much to pass up.

  

Book Review: “Driving Like Crazy” by P.J. O’Rourke

 | 

I have read two of P.J. O’Rourke’s books, Eat the Rich and Parliament of Whores. In reading them, one thing was abundantly clear about his political views: He does not like the left.

Hence, given that a former American automotive giant has recently become little more than a subsidiary of the federal government – and thus the American taxpayer – thanks to a Democrat President and Congress, a P.J. O’Rourke book entitled Driving Like Crazy (and furthermore subtitled Thirty Years of Vehicular Hell-bending Celebrating America the Way It’s Supposed to Be – With an Oil Well in Every Backyard, a Cadillac Escalade in Every Carport and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Mowing Our Lawn) promised to be interesting, to say the least.

There are indeed plenty of shots at both the Obama Administration and Congress. However, given the span of Driving Like Crazy, there are many more digs at figures like Carter, Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) and Al Gore as well as at liberals (the “Fun Suckers”) and liberalism in general.

I should admit I might be out of O’Rourke’s target audience in a couple of ways.

First, I am about half as old as he is currently, which is approximately the age O’Rourke was when he wrote his National Lampoon satire, the thoughts and author of which he takes to task in a sequel. It isn’t just his “neophyte self” he picks on; young people as a whole take a few verbal jabs throughout the book, though nothing like his political foes.

The other is partial function of my age, though much more relevant to reading the book. While I definitely like cars and appreciate a well-designed automobile, I am in no way a “car nut.” To prove my point: O’Rourke races a 1939 Chevrolet in the California Mille, which is a race I had never heard of prior to reading his book. Furthermore, the only thing I know about a ‘39 Chevy is that since it was manufactured between the two World Wars, it likely was made with about the same amount of metal as a Sherman tank.

Neither of those facts, however, stopped me from enjoying Driving Like Crazy.

O’Rourke believes that cars attract good people. A byproduct of this is that in the hands of O’Rourke, those people, among others, become interesting subjects. He contrasts the phoniness (as he saw it) of Los Angeles with the founder of Rent-A-Wreck, a man who supposedly would not deal with anyone, employee or customer, who didn’t seem like fun. A trip through Pakistan and India during the extreme heat of summer becomes an experience worth having because of journalist colleagues with great senses of humor, equally great driving skills and a vehicle that apparently can sell itself.

There are a couple of moments where a reader may weigh the book’s level of harmless middle-age male sport versus that of unnecessary mischief. O’Rourke and a companion took a poor, unassuming French journalist through some of the parts of America that would not appear in your typical travel guide. There is also a series of waitresses – they’d be servers now, but at the time of the story, they’re still waitresses – who had to put up with the antics of four overly cranky motorcycle riders. Some may call both “hijinks.” A few, especially those who also have been employed in a restaurant, may consider the latter quite cruel. Each account is honest, if nothing else.

Fortunately, there are many more examples of honest fun. You will almost certainly have a sense of participating in the races O’Rourke depicts even if you’ve never been to their locales. It may not have been fun for O’Rourke and his fellow journalists to deal with the preposterously meticulous Indian customs agents, but at least you’ll get a good laugh out of it. And although I can’t say for sure, I can’t imagine that there aren’t many parents who will read O’Rourke and his wife’s experience in choosing a family vehicle and not arrive at the same conclusion about the minivan: perfectly sensible, absolutely practical, and there’s no way they would drive it.

There is also much to learn from O’Rourke. For example, breaking down in a classic automobile can turn seemingly hostile locals at a bar in the middle of nowhere into friendly strangers willing to help. It may not result, however, in the mechanical problem actually being solved. (Another lesson: If a trip down to Mexico for some off-roading with your wife or girlfriend sounds like a good idea to you, you might want to consider a change in plans.)

Driving Like Crazy undoubtedly is aimed at O’Rourke’s contemporaries: conservatives and libertarians nearing or at retirement age who share his political bent and passion for cars. However, if you consider a car more than a simple object of transportation, you will most likely enjoy Driving Like Crazy, no matter how old you are. I’m not sure if I’d suggest the book for a liberal – that is, unless you are giving it to one as a gift. Something tells me O’Rourke would very much approve of that.

  

Traffic Laws

 | 

Ever so often, I come across an article about traffic violations, some more interesting than others. As long that article has been up for more than a couple of hours, two types of responses almost invariably seem to appear: 1) those from people who see many, if not most (or even all) traffic law enforcement mechanisms as nuisances at best, but most likely fee grabbers and 2) the ones from people who believe that if drivers follow the law, there’s no need to worry about cameras, radar and the like.

While I have to admit my sympathies do lie with the first group, my personal bias is not the main reason that I find the arguments of the latter group bothersome. Rather, it is their implied belief that everyone should unquestioningly accept the actions of the police (and by extension, the government).

Unlike most other breaches of the law, the burden of innocence in the case of traffic violations falls on the accused. Since the people of that second group take the view that anyone who complains about getting a ticket should have just “obeyed the law”, then, using that logic, not only are they taking the law at face value, they are also assuming that the lawmakers, police and their means of enforcement are correct and fair simply because of their collective assumed authority.

It is extraordinarily likely, however, the people who fall under that second category don’t truly believe in government infallibility themselves.

Remember all the commotion and controversy after the 2000 Presidential elections and how they dragged out for weeks afterward? Once Bush was declared the victor, many liberals claimed the election was stolen and Bush was “not their President.” And, of course, this was all before the events nearly a year later. When Bush was re-elected in 2004, many liberals wrote or signed on to asinine letters apologizing for the fact. Throughout his presidency, Democrats questioned his handling of the “War on Terrorism” (that is, once they gathered the fortitude to do so), the “tax cuts for the rich”, and finally the bailout of his corporate cronies… until Obama was elected. Now, we all should accept his plans for health care and to “give him time” to “fix” the economy.

On the other hand, the right-wingers wanted everyone to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court in 2000. When the USA PATRIOT Act was thrust upon us, Republicans claimed anyone who questioned it was threatening national security and “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” Similar arguments would be made to justify Guantanamo Bay, torturing terrorism suspects and the country’s move toward a national identification card. While many conservatives were lukewarm to the bailouts even when Bush was President, they didn’t become truly vocal in their protest until Obama took office, resorting to pathetic comparisons to Hitler, Mussolini and Marx, despite the fact it was Bush who set precedent for exploding the national budget.

Rare is the person that actually questions both Bush and Obama or, if he happens to be a fan of or voted for either, points out the flaws of his chosen candidate.

Virtually nonexistent, however, is the person who accepts the two equally as authority figures, and, as such, believes the prior administration’s actions in the name of national security and the current administration’s social and economic programs are equally vital and unassailable by the (mere?) common citizen. Yet this is equivalent to what the “follow the law, you won’t get a ticket” crowd wants drivers to do.

Fighting terrorism, the economy and health care are all more important than traffic laws if for no other reason than they all have a greater effect on more people. But if it is acceptable to question the President (at least when he belongs to the other party) on matters supposedly crucial to the country as a whole, why should everyone have to meekly bow to the rules state and local traffic jurisdictions, especially since supposed violators aren’t even given the courtesy of presumed innocence?

There are legitimate reasons to have rules of the road. However, many of the laws are quite arbitrary and selectively enforced. My objection is not to speed limits, but artificially low ones. I am not flat against tickets for violations but rather to governments relying on them as sources of revenue. There is a difference between promoting safety and claiming that laws and enforcement tools are absolutely vital to preventing accidents when most drivers clearly know better.

  

A Clunker of an Idea

 | 

The original allotment of $1 billion of taxpayer funds for the federal CARS (aka “Cash for Clunkers”) program nearly was exhausted in less than a week. The amount designated was only enough for at most 286,000 rebates, and that would be the case only if each vehicle qualified at the lower $3500 level.

This means either:

1) The federal government could not foresee that one in every nine hundred Americans of driving age just might happen to own a vehicle worth significantly less than $3500 (let alone $4500) and still consider themselves in good enough financial shape — rightly or wrongly — to purchase a new car at essentially a 10%, 20%, or even 30% discount

or

2) The government did know how quickly the designated money for the CARS program would be depleted, yet still implemented it at an insufficient level of funding because they had the fallback of “finding” even more taxpayer money to continue the program.

This is, of course, the exact same government millions of Americans want to have an even bigger hand in — if not completely take over — health care, a field that has many more facets, involves thousands of times more money, affects many more people, is exponentially harder to predict, and frankly, is much more important to the nation as a whole than any vehicle rebate system.

A vehicle rebate system they managed to bungle, mind.