In Search of Type B (Trump and Clinton are the same)

My last post ended up being more political than I originally planned, and since I've rung that bell, I'll continue to let it ring, briefly, before quelling it.

The race for the nomination for the White House is still in full swing.  On the Right, Donald Trump pretty much has the votes locked up.  Ted Cruz is tripping over himself chasing after him, with John Kasich very distant and hopeless third.
On the right, Hillary Clinton pretty much has the votes to be the Democratic nominee over Bernie Sanders.
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - Hillary Clinton, circa 1993
          Can you imagine the outrage if Bill Clinton says the same thing?

The political class Republicans hate Donald Trump, and they are looking for a reason, any reason, to deny him the nomination.  This is somewhat understandable since he has not really been a Republican and many of his historic social views have been pretty far left.  Having come up in private industry with his political role mostly as a donor, the Republican elite see him as distasteful, he hasn't paid his dues.  This is probably something the left should pay attention to.  It would not be impossible for Trump to continue his wild-card streak and govern from a viewpoint left of Clinton if elected.

I'm personally convinced Hillary Clinton is being handed the nomination on a server platter by the Democratic political elite.  The idea that in an open-year election, there was so little interest in becoming the Democratic nominee is absolutely ludicrous.  Bernie Sanders serves as a good, never-win opponent; a self-described Democratic Socialist never had a chance.  He also serves the role of making Hillary Clinton appear to be a moderate, despite being left of a Democratic Socialist on some issues.  Nice planning.  The fact that Sanders is doing as well as he is only shows the real problem the public has with Clinton.

The press, the left and many on the right were quick to blow Donald Trump off as a blow-hard, reality-TV candidate ... until he started to win.  His base is still being written off as "just a bunch of white uneducated males."  In a world where every minority is a protected class, the only group that can be rounded up and ridiculed, written off and ignored is the boring middle class.  Trump has definitely tapped into something here.  And deciding that it is a voice that doesn't matter is quite sad.  It is hard to see Donald Trump ever being elected in a general election, but that shouldn't discount the voice of people who see something wrong, even if it is an unfashionable wrong or the blow-hard solutions are unrealistic.  The fact that Donald Trump thinks his election will be a steam roller in November, shows the fantasy land he lives in.

The Democratic nomination process is rigged to avoid a Donald Trump (or a Bernie Sanders).  The Democratic Superdelegates are party insiders who can vote any way they wish and serve as a safety valve against the wrong kind of candidate - ie the candidate the people might choose if given a real choice.  In a more normal year, with several viable candidates that the politico glitterati can smile at, their role is minimized, but in a year with a lot of broken rules, Bernie has even less of a chance.  Sadly, this situation seems to be accepted by the voting left.  Sayeth the Superdelegates:  Don't worry, no matter how you vote, dear voter, we know better.  Democratic Superdelegates like to claim that their role is largely symbolic, so why not get rid of them???

Even with all this, I'm surprised at the number of people who will vote for Donald Trump; I'm equally surprised at the number of people who will vote for Hillary Clinton.

The reality is, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are exactly the same person.  For the past 30 years as their feet hit the floor every morning they both have said, "What can I do to promote myself today."  Donald Trump is actually pretty honest about this; he has no problem telling people how rich he is and how years of capitalist behavior has been to his favor.
Hillary Clinton has hidden behind a facade of working for the everywoman, while becoming fabulously wealthy in the process (and sometimes claiming poverty, despite being in the upper 0.1% of wealth holders in the Country).  This can be best illustrated by what happened after Bill Clinton left office in 2001.  Instead of going home to Arkansas, and there probably would have been respect if Hillary decided to represent her actual home state, she moved to New York, claimed to always be a New Yorker.  New York is a much bigger, more powerful, left-leaning state than Arkansas.  New York voting for a carpet bagger with a famous name says something about New York, and it is merely further evidence of the Democratic machine, and how much of that machine is controlled by so few.

There are voices of reason chirping in from the mayhem of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but the reality is far too squalid.
Much like Bill Richardson never had a chance in 2008, despite likely being the candidate who had accomplished much with little fanfare, John Kasich is all but sidelined at this point, his quiet demeanor hidden behind the Trump private jets and screeching of Hillary Clinton.
And that is what is missing from politics in the United States.  There are no shortage of Uber-Type-A people screaming they are right and everyone else is wrong.  This isn't exclusive to politics, the same situation exists anywhere Uber-As scream and yell above everyone else - basically everywhere.  Nixon's Great Silent Majority still exists, and will always be the great silent majority; the listeners and doers who will continue on continuing on, no matter which self-promoting, dishonest narcissist is eventually elected.

Liberty and Fish

A few weeks ago, I saw a diatribe written by a raving, sanctimonious left-winger on how conservatives are destroying liberty.  This was a fringe viewpoint that was so far left, it was almost a right-wing viewpoint.  I didn't search this out, but it would have been just as possible that a similar diatribe could be been keyed by a raving, sanctimonious right-winger.

"It is interesting how, once one edits justifications for violence down to a length suitable for T-shirt slogans, political distinctions between left and right disappear." - Sarah Vowell

The raving, sanctimonious liberal mentioned the distinction between Freedom From versus Freedom To.  Ignoring the writer after the first couple paragraphs was easy, but this started quite a bit of thinking on the distinction between Freedom From and Freedom To.

The father of this concept is probably Isaiah Berlin who talked about Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty in the 1950's.  This is a seemingly simple concept that is actually less straight forward than it appears at first glance.  As it is a concept in the political realm, it is sadly claimed by both the political left and right in haughty fashion.  Ideologues in both camps claim to own moral superiority here.
I've read a little more about Isaiah Berlin, who was an admitted liberal, but at a different political time than today.  I do wish I could have a picture of me that is as menacingly smart as this one of him...

Negative and Positive Liberty should not be thought of as bad vs. good or wrong vs. right.  In simplest forms, Negative Liberty is the absence of external barriers to freedom, Positive Liberty is the ability to act without barriers to freedom.  A simplified example is in order.
I am going to the store to buy soap.
If there is no soap to buy, I have neither negative, nor positive freedom.
If there are three bars of soap and I can buy any of them, I have both positive and negative freedom.  There is a choice (Negative Liberty) and I can choose freely (Positive Liberty).
If there are three bars of soap, and one costs $1, another $7 and the third $45, but I only have $2, I have negative freedom (I can buy any bar I choose), but not positive (my money constraints mean I can only buy the $1 bar).  Money or internal limits do not have to be the only constraint on Positive Liberty; if a large, vicious dog is snarling over one bar of soap, my Positive Liberty is constrained since I also value my hands.

Conceptually, Negative Liberty is a precondition for Positive Liberty.  If there is no soap, or only one bar of soap, my choice is limited.  It doesn't matter how much money I have, my Positive Liberty is constrained by my Negative Liberty.

How liberals like to twist the concept into their favor:
Everyone should have at least enough money to choose between two kinds of soap, so we'll take $6 from the rich, give it to the poor to allow them positive freedom.
How conservatives like to twist the concept into their favor:
By taking $6 from the rich, you may have deprived the rich of being able to buy the $45 soap, or being able to spend that money on other things where the rich had Positive Liberty.
The conservative argument gets a little difficult if the rich has $238,922 - there is almost no reduction to the Positive Liberty of the rich in this case.  However, if the rich has $12 (still substantially more than my $2), the Positive Liberty of the rich is greatly affected.  If the rich has $238,922, but $156,223 is taken in small increments to increase the Positive Liberty of the poor for a myriad of things, it is arguable that the Positive Liberty of the rich person has now been negatively affected.  Where this is in reality, is a matter of perspective.

The concept can be taken to the extreme.  This can be instructive, or it can be what the ideologues on both the political left and right like to do to try to make a point.  The limits of total Negative Liberty is anarchy - no limits at all.  I can take any soap I want and do anything I want to get the soap I want, Total Negative Liberty!
The limits of Positive Liberty is Communism - no choice since everyone must be completely equal in Positive Liberty.  I have one soap, we all have one soap, and we will all like it!

And so, much like EVERYTHING else in life, there is a balance.  And where this balance lies is dependent on the political wing.  Sadly, these choices toward both the left or right are end up being coercive.
Conservative:  I should be able to buy guns.
Liberal:  I should be able to walk down the street in even the worst neighborhood without fear of getting shot (never mind knives, clubs, etc.).
Conservative:  I agree, so buy a gun and protect your liberal-ass self.
But this is coercive.  The liberal may be afraid of guns; the liberal may be of limited means and so can not afford the gun or the training to use it properly, etc.  And taxes are already paying for police to provide for the general good of the community.

Liberal:  In order to have any liberty, I need to be healthy and so health care must be available.
Conservative:  I'm 24 and very healthy, I don't want to buy health care insurance, besides, I just finished college so I'd rather spend that money on beer.
Liberal:  You don't have to buy it.
But this is coercive, since not buying health care now comes with a punitive tax!
<slight rant>  In reality, the 24-year-old will be covered by his parents policy which is the most coercive part of Obamacare.  This is coercive to the parent's employer.  CUT THE UMBILICAL CHORD ALREADY!!!  At 24, the beer drinker should be able to take care of himself!!! <end slight rant>

Golly Jeepers, this post is turning politically negative which was not the intent, since I'm mostly a political agnostic, I'll go back to soap...

We might want to look at why I have limited Positive Liberty.  Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I decided to buy a very expensive shampoo?  Not much sympathy there - I've purposefully limited my Positive Liberty with respect to soap, by choosing to buy something else.  Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I worked for a poorly run company and lost my job - maybe being helped out to buy good soap for a short time will help with my future employment prospects by smelling better?  Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I'm in college - maybe I should suck it up with cheap soap and plan that some day, I may be able to buy $7 soap.  Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I quit high school and now make very little money - maybe I need help for a little while, but ultimately I should be able to work toward opportunities to correct my poor past decisions and buy better soap in the future.

Lets take the issue of soap a bit further.  Sometimes, Positive Liberty can and should limit Negative Liberty.  But the line can get quite grey.
Let's say that we've had new companies come into the soap market and now there are 5 soaps to choose from.  Choice and competition brings down the price of the expensive ones, but raises the cost of the cheap ones a bit since the supply of soap raw materials is now more limited.  (Oops, by having more Negative Liberty, Positive Liberty may be decreased for some.  So free market forces can actually decrease freedom.)
Now, it is determined that one of the soaps is really bad for the environment, so it is forced to be taken off the market.  This is bad for Negative Liberty - one less soap to choose from.  But may be good overall - people are free from the tyranny of dead fish.  But who decides that the soap in question is bad?  Science can determine this, but scientific understanding evolves over time.  And are all scientists devoid of soap preferences and investment in the soap companies?  Does a soap study funded by the soap industry mean it is axiomatically flawed?  And what if all soap is a little bad and the one soap is proven to be only slightly worse for the environment, but I can use much, much less of it, so it has a net positive - should it be banned?  But if it isn't banned, then that frees another person to use a lot more of it than is really needed and kill fish.  And if all soap is a little bad, should it all be banned, thus freeing people from the tyranny of dead fish, but subjecting everyone to the tyranny of stinky people?
Nope, the fish are telling us that there are no simple answers, just degrees of dead fish.

The entire concept of liberty is a political, or at least authoritative, construct - so I guess this post had to become political.

But the sad thing is, we don't really have that much liberty, positive or negative, in politics.
In theory, I can vote for anyone I wish this coming November, I have a lot of Negative Liberty with respect to my vote.  I can even write myself in on the ballot.  My Positive Liberty is restricted in that there will likely only be two realistic choices in November for president.  My Positive Liberty is further restricted in that we appear to be heading toward a situation where both of those choices are really, really bad.  Even worse, my Negative Liberty isn't even all that good, since most of the listed choices are not as different as they would like to pretend that they are.  Both are more interested in their own Positive and Negative Liberty, and people like them, than they are in the Positive or Negative Liberty of the average voter.
So in the end, I guess I'm just a dead fish.  A very soapy dead fish.

The MGB and the Ferrari

Something disturbing happened a few days ago.

I had an appointment that I was early for, and the person I was meeting with was tied up with someone else, so I flopped down in a chair to wait.  Picking up an outdated, random car magazine on the small table next to me, I opened it to the Contents page.

Prominently on the contents page was a picture of the Ferrari 488, below it was a listing for a comparison of small cross-over utility vehicles.
I turned to the mud-bug article!

A group of us around, primarily-pre, driving age lusted after exotics of all kinds; this is a natural and required part of moving into the driving age for most guys.  There were three basic camps:  The Lamborghini Countach guys (show over go), The Porsche guys (really just one guy and his dad had a 928 - a car that Porsche engineers lauded as superior to the 911), and Ferrari guys.  We really didn't know jack about cars, and I was in the Ferrari camp.  There was also one Pantera guy, but, well, he was a Pantera guy...

The Testarossa was an impressive vehicle, but I always thought the side vents were odd - almost comical, boy-racerish.  The F40, on the other had, was a gritty no-bones speed machine, with the 308 an every-mans Ferrari by comparison.  In retrospect, the Porsche guy was probably correct that the 959 was a better car than the F40 in comparison, since it was nearly as quick and had creature comforts as well - but the Porsche 959 just did not inspire the same visceral reaction as the F40, sans radio and all.

Reality eventually does catch up with all of us, and my first car was an MG Midget - a decision I am convinced started a critical chain of events leading to who and where I am now.
Still, while grossly out of the realm of reality, any Ferrari continued to elicit awe, envy, and desire.

And now, some twenty-odd years later, I turn to the article on practical, fuel-efficient utility vehicles over one of the first modern turbo Ferraris.  I keep wondering when I'm going to go over that old-age hump, and this is yet another sign that I may already have.
I still probably lust after the Ferrari 308/328 more than the modern ones.  Partially because they are more attainable, but also as some terrible nostalgia.  While modern exotics are more purposeful, I can't believe form has taken too high a place over function.  These cars are actually somewhat pointless to own unless they are also going to get some track time.  Porsche 911s are just wrong without a whale tail.  I think the Enzo is almost ugly.  And automotive design reached a zenith, at least a local maxima, with the Ferrari 328.  Amazing engineering, stunning looks, yet fuel injected and widely considered one of the most reliable Ferraris to this day.  I'm well aware that a V6 Honda Accord can probably give a Ferrari 328 a good run for its money and a new Mustang GT will make the 328 appear to be a wagon on the conestoga trail in comparison; people who make that comparison should shut up already and go back to watching Fast and Furious.

Ten to fifteen years ago, the Ferrari 328s were quite affordable (comparatively).  It was actually reasonable to be able to buy one for a few 10s of thousands of dollars, sometimes less, with some of the best examples below $100,000.  Today, $50,000 is probably the entry price for these cars that "real" Ferrari owners see as starter cars, with the best examples well into the six figures.

And yet, I turned to the article on cross-over utility vehicles.

In my defense, I'll probably be replacing my Taco within the next few years and a mud-bug is something I'm considering even though I'd probably miss the open bed.
Still, I'm at a point where I probably could afford a performance vehicle, maybe even an exotic without significantly affecting myself financially.  I saw one locally a few years ago that was a restored salvage-title vehicle and was subsequently quite reasonably priced.  But Doug DeMuro's excellent series on actually owning a Ferrari makes important considerations on both owning and selling one.
His comment on the Ferrari being a "Point A to Point A" car is a bigger factor.  I have two motorcycles in my garage so I'm not against having totally impractical and expensive vehicles, but while they may be impractical, they get used extensively.  My Goldwing has been in 49 states and never on a trailer.  My Triumph Trophy has been flogged through rain, heat snow, and impromptu trips to trivial destinations.  I just don't see that happening with a Ferrari 328 if I owned one.

After my first car, the MG Midget, my second car was a 1977 MGB.  Over the time I owned this car, I did all those things that late model MGBs needed.  I put dual carbs on it.  Reworked the front suspension.  I put in an electric overdrive gearbox.  It was a phenomenally reliable car and what I drove all through college.

I still own the 1977 MGB, but sadly, it will never be on the road again.  I retired it many years ago when the engine oil pressure was starting to drop into the worrisome range (no rod-knock yet, so I knew I could fix for not much money or time), but more critically, the rust on the car was approaching a level that appeared to compromise the structural integrity.
I do occasionally have thoughts of restoring it, but not actually restoring it at all - I would be better off buying another 1977 MGB and transferring all those parts to remake my car in newer form.  But I'm not sure I can do that either, since it would ultimately mean getting rid of a vehicle which at one time in my life was probably my best friend.

The car has no value, but I can't get rid of it.  And maybe this Ferrari episode reminds why it is a good thing to keep it.  That 1977 MGB reminds me of who I really was, or am, or both.  As long as it sits there, a car I won't drive, I can't possibly waste money on another car I won't drive.

I do sometimes search Ebay during dull moments at work, and I still can't look at a Ferrari 328 without thinking maybe...  But the rational me knows that if the weather is good enough to drive a Ferrari, I'll probably be on a motorcycle, and I can enjoy that without being worried about any pretense of it as an investment.
So maybe this is evidence that I have gone over that hump.
And maybe that is OK.
But my meeting was still delayed, and I did read the article on the Ferrari 488 a little later ... and it sounds incredible.