Denny Hamlin and Jamie McMurray Revolutionize Restrictor-Plate Racing

While watching the race yesterday at Talladega, it looked like what had become a typical kind of race--it starts off interesting with a big group of cars, then the leaders eventually line up and drive around single file for most of the race. Under this way of racing, things get interesting during restarts and at the end of the race, but most of the race is fairly calm--just clicking off laps. I prepared myself for a fairly uninteresting middle part of the race.

Then on lap 33, something amazing happened: Jamie McMurray and Denny Hamlin moved out of line and basically touching nose to tail raced to the front of the pack. At first it seemed that they must have just had a good run, but when Denny Hamlin did the same thing with another driver (I think it was Montoya), I realized that something new and wonderful was happening to restrictor plate racing and it was this: two cars running nose-to-tail (touching each other the whole time?) could actually drive about 10 m.p.h. faster than the field running in a normal drafting line. I'm guessing that when the second car tucks that closely to the first car, the two create kind of a "super car" that moves through the air better than a line of cars that are not touching.



The tv announcers reported that Dale Earnhardt commented, "That was rude." I think it was more than "rude," it was a move that will change restrictor plate racing as long as they run this car.

The question, then, is why not just run that way lap after lap after lap. If two cars could hook up that way for 25 laps in a row, they might be able to lap the field. My guess is that it is not easy to do it for an extended period of time, and also, the second car in line isn't getting air, so it would have trouble with overheating.

It was interesting to watch the television broadcast, because the announcers didn't catch on too quickly to what we were all watching: a revolution in the way restrictor plate racing will happen in the future. D.W. eventually noticed and kind of expressed amazement, but Mike Joy never really got it.

It will be interesting to see if Daytona allows for this kind of racing, or if this will be unique to Talladega.

I hope NASCAR doesn't change the restrictor-plate set-ups too much, because this element adds a lot of fun to the race.

To Be Free or Not to Be Free, That Is the Question

I read once that the politial ideas spectrum was not left on one side and right on the other, but that the spectrum was essentially freedom on one side and the lack of freedom on the other side. Mark Steyn basically makes this point at the end of his Macleans column about the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.

Well, look, the defenders of the present "human rights" regime started this whole free-speech-leads-to-the-Holocaust line. I'm not saying that Canada's thought-crime enforcers are planning to murder millions of people, only that (as Jennifer Lynch might put it) history has shown us that extraordinary government powers in the name of "reasonable limits" often lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. Whether or not I'm the new Fuhrer and Maclean's is Mein Kampf, Commissars Lynch and Hall are either intentionally inverting the historical record or, to be charitable, simply ignorant. But, if it's the latter, why should they have extraordinary powers to regulate public discourse?

I don't have as low an opinion of Canadians as Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch do. I don't believe your liberty is the conditional discretionary gift of hack bureaucrats advised by Marxist theorists. You defeat bad ideas — whether Nazism, Marxism, jihadism, Steynism or Trudeaupian pseudo-"human rights" mumbo-jumbo — in the bracing air and light of day, in vigorous open debate, not in the fetid corridors of power policed by ahistorical nitwits.

It's not a left/right thing. It's not a gay/straight thing. It's not a Jew/Muslim thing. It's not a hateful Steyn/nice fluffy caring compassionate Canadian thing.

It's a free/unfree thing. And the commissars are on the wrong side.

I am continually amazed by Mark Steyn's ability to cut through the fog of the various narratives of the leftest mindset and clearly state a coherent rationale for classic liberalism.

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Democrats have always counted on blue-collar Americans voting for them in elections. Since the Reagan Revolution, Democrats are disappointed to see so many in the middle class vote Republican. Thomas Frank wrote What's the Matter with Kansas? a couple of years ago to address this. His major thesis is that Republicans have fooled blue collar workers to vote on values instead of economic issues. If you are middle class or lower class, then you should vote Democrat, because that is the party that has your interests at heart.

I have a few problems with this thesis. First, does that also imply that anyone who is rich must vote Republican because that has your interests at heart? So many of the super-rich in this country are Democrats, why are they not voting Republican? Maybe it's because they have values that are more important to them than their tax rate. This leads to my second problem with Frank's thesis, which is a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. His very thesis is elitist: left-leaning voters can vote their values, regardless of income. But working-class voters have to vote his preferred way or they are sheep. Finally, I would say that values are what makes a person. If my tax-rate is 20% or 25% or 40% is less important than the values issues that are core to me: pro-life, traditional marriage, engaged foreign policy.

Living in the very liberal state of Minnesota, I also get a chance to see that when Democrats are in power, they make a lot of decisions that hurt working-class people. Here's a few that come to mind.

1. The Minnesota legislature recently passed a 5 cents a gallon tax increase. Gov. Pawlenty vetoed it, but that was overridden. Now, how in the world does 5 cents a gallon tax increase help Minnesota's lower income people? It doesn't. But the environmentalists like it.

2. Immigration. Democrats are basically in favor of amnesty and lax enforcement of the borders. How does having millions of people willing to do cheap labor help the American blue collar man and woman? It doesn't. But the one-worlders like it.

3. Ban on incandescent light bulbs. Fluorescent bulbs are more expensive. How does having to buy expensive light bulbs help lower income people? It doesn't. But the environmentalists like it.

4. Drilling for oil. There are vast oil reserves in Alaska and (seemingly) North Dakota. Having America produce more oil would help reduce the cost of heating homes, operating cars, and the transportation of goods. How does not allowing American oil companies to drill in ANWR and North Dakota help America's poor? It doesn't. But the environmentalists don't want oil drilled in these places.

5. Light rail. Democrats in Minnesota are in love with mass transportation. They love light rail especially. The only problem is that light rail is very expensive to build, it serves a miniscule population, and it operates at a significant financial loss. How does spending billions of dollars on light rail help Minnesota's poor? It doesn't. But the environmentalists like it.

6. Pork barrel spending. Both parties engage in pork barrel spending, that I will not deny. But ideologically radical leftists like spending more and more money on anything because it contributes to the redistribution of wealth, which is an unqualified good in their eyes. But how does pork barrel spending help middle and lower class Americans? It doesn't. But socialists like it because it redistributes money.