I've already said who I think will win, but I haven't yet said who I think should win. It's probably obvious from context, but I believe that Barack Obama is the candidate that should win the Presidency in tomorrow's general election. In this post, I will attempt to lay out my reasons for that decision. (For another take, you can see Andrew Sullivan's Obama endorsement here.)
Domestic Affairs: One of the key issues in this race is the economy, and the crisis that has seized our banking industry. John McCain lacks expertise in economic affairs, by his own admission. Granted, Barack Obama is not a noted economic expert either, but he has some pretty good advisors. Biden, as senior senator from Delaware, has represented banking interests for lo, these many years. I've not always liked him for it, but it's one of his areas of expertise. And Obama counts Warren Buffett amongst his supporters. John McCain's most famous economic advisor is none other than Carly Fiorina. As you will recall, she's the same one who took a top computer firm, Hewlett-Packard, and drove it into the ditch. Truly, there's no contest. Warren Buffett could make money selling ice to Eskimos. Carly Fiorina could lose money selling a cure for Death. Advantage: Obama.
Foreign Affairs: As far as preparation and experience goes, this is also no contest. While Obama is quite well-educated and well-read, that doesn't quite measure up to the experience in military affairs John McCain has received. Son and grandson of admirals, graduate of Annapolis, decorated Navy veteran, he spent a lifetime in his nation's service before he even set foot in the Senate. But preparation and experience aren't all that matter. McCain's main drawback in this arena is his propensity for rash action. Obama has the temperament advantage, there. And, he looks to be a pragmatic realist in foreign affairs, a welcome change from the last eight years of Wilsonian interventionism. This one's a wash.
Truly, up to the end of the Democratic convention, I would have been content to have either man as President. They both bring good things with them to the office. Both men are a credit to their nation. But, there's a crucial point where McCain lost me.
As I've said before, a candidate's selection of a running mate is the first Presidential decision that they ever make for real. It's all jawboning up to that point. And, that decision sets the template for the way most of their decisions will be made. Look back, if you will, at Bush's selection of a running mate, back in 2000. He appointed Dick Cheney to run the vetting committee. And then, hey presto! Cheney was the VP nominee. That was a foreshadowing, if you like. We know now that he's been the most powerful VP in modern times, virtually a shadow President.
Bearing that in mind, we can take the measure of the candidates based upon their picks for VP.
Barack Obama picked a colleague from the Senate, Joe Biden of Delaware. Not a man that I have endless love for, to be sure, but not a total dunce, either. He does tend to run his pie-hole when you'd rather he didn't, but if he's had a chance to study up on an issue, he knows his stuff. Obama picked a running mate that would make him a better President.
John McCain, on the other hand, picked ... Governor Barbie.
Say what?
I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. But it became painfully clear that she was terribly, terribly unqualified to be Vice President, to say nothing of President. Her sole qualification is that she shored up his credentials with the social conservatives. This was a profoundly unserious selection, one chosen on impulse, one chosen to win the news cycle that day.
In my mind, that pick disqualified McCain from holding the Presidency. We don't need another wild gambler in the Oval Office. And we sure as Hell don't need Governor Barbie one heartbeat away from the keys to the nuclear liquor cabinet.
There are also three other reasons why I think it's important for a Democrat to win the Presidency this year, entirely apart from the individual qualifications of the men involved.
The Drunkard's Walk: Although I'm a paid-up member of the Libertarian party, I'm not ideologically committed to any party in particular. I tend to call myself a long-period centrist. I think it's healthy to alternate the Presidency between the major parties every eight to twelve years. Eight years is long enough to get some serious policy done, but generally not long enough to do any serious damage. It's long enough to appoint a judge or two to the Supreme Court, which tends to keep the court within shouting distance of a 5-4 balance. Neither party has a lock on the truth. By alternating between them on a long-term basis, we move more or less in the right direction, albeit in a drunkard's walk: lurching now to the right, then to the left, but overall moving in the right direction. After eight years of Republican rule, it's time to alternate.
If You Make It Their Baby, They'll Have To Spank It: The Democrats will act like petulant children about the Global War on Terror unless and until they own the responsibility for prosecuting it. I tend to think that one of the most important events in the Cold War was after the 1952 elections, when Eisenhower basically signed on to Truman's policy of containment. That made containment of Communism itself a bipartisan consensus policy. Had that not been done ... well, I don't know how it would have turned out. But I doubt it would have been good. We're in the same kind of fix today. We need for the Democrats to be forced to own the GWOT so that they'll begin to talk like serious adults about it. Then, and only then, will we have a bipartisan consensus as to how we're going to fight this one out.
Goodbye, Jesse Jackson: The election of a black man as President of the United States turns an important page in the history of race relations. Among other things, it virtually makes the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons of the world irrelevant. No one's fool enough to believe that it's the end of racism, or of the end of the conversation we need to have between the races in this country. It's not even the beginning of the end. But to paraphrase Churchill after El Alamein, maybe it is the end of the beginning.
I may well be wrong. The one thing I know with the greatest certainty is that I don't know everything. And what the heck, the Republic won't collapse if McCain wins ... but given all that I've seen so far, I am convinced that Barack Obama is the man for the hour. He is qualified, by experience and temperament, to lead us as President.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Election Eve (E-1)
Tomorrow is the Day of Days, and it can't come soon enough for me. I am so ready for this one to be over. This, though, will serve as my final pre-election update, and I will make my semi-official prognostication as to how it will shake out tomorrow night. (I say semi-official, since the prognostication isn't actually mine...)
And now, for the last time, the numbers:
From Pollster:
DEM: 311 (+25)
REP: 142 (-15)
Toss-Up: 85 (-10)
From Intrade:
DEM: 364, 90.6% chance to win (+/- 0 EV, +5.9%)
REP: 174, 9.9% chance to win (+/- 0 EV, -5.4%)
And from FiveThirtyEight:
DEM: 346.5 (+1.7)
REP: 191.5 (-1.7)
I find it interesting that the Intrade numbers have held rock-steady at 364/174 for over two weeks, now. I will watch with interest tomorrow night, to see if the real result bears out the bettors' line. This is the first time that we've been able to watch a prediction market in action, live, all the way through an election cycle. If they prove to be as accurate as any major poll, this will become an even more important tool in elections to come.
And now, the semi-official TTS prediction ... I think I'll take the Intrade line, as it stands tonight. Which is to say, Barack Obama takes the Presidency with 364 Electoral Votes, to John McCain's 174 Electoral Votes. And I'll take FiveThirtyEight's prediction for the popular vote split, 52% to 46%. If I had any real money riding on it, I'd sandbag the spread and take Obama at 340, but I'm a bit of a sissy that way.
Election Day is tomorrow. Remember: even though it's too late to vote early, it's never too late to vote often!
And now, for the last time, the numbers:
From Pollster:
DEM: 311 (+25)
REP: 142 (-15)
Toss-Up: 85 (-10)
From Intrade:
DEM: 364, 90.6% chance to win (+/- 0 EV, +5.9%)
REP: 174, 9.9% chance to win (+/- 0 EV, -5.4%)
And from FiveThirtyEight:
DEM: 346.5 (+1.7)
REP: 191.5 (-1.7)
I find it interesting that the Intrade numbers have held rock-steady at 364/174 for over two weeks, now. I will watch with interest tomorrow night, to see if the real result bears out the bettors' line. This is the first time that we've been able to watch a prediction market in action, live, all the way through an election cycle. If they prove to be as accurate as any major poll, this will become an even more important tool in elections to come.
And now, the semi-official TTS prediction ... I think I'll take the Intrade line, as it stands tonight. Which is to say, Barack Obama takes the Presidency with 364 Electoral Votes, to John McCain's 174 Electoral Votes. And I'll take FiveThirtyEight's prediction for the popular vote split, 52% to 46%. If I had any real money riding on it, I'd sandbag the spread and take Obama at 340, but I'm a bit of a sissy that way.
Election Day is tomorrow. Remember: even though it's too late to vote early, it's never too late to vote often!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Video Del Fuego, Part XII
Halloween Safety Tip #22: Under no circumstances should you scare a trained boxer unless you are wearing the proper protective headgear. And no, a full-face rubber mask doesn't count, even if it came with a top hat.
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Past Into Tomorrow
A few posts ago, I said that there's a rabbit I wanted to chase another day. There's an important internal conversation that the Democratic Party simply must have with themselves. They have to own up to the fact that an important fringe wing of their party from the '60s was at least a little disloyal. That fringe may not have colored the way the party looked at things like full-throated patriotism and the dignity of military service, but it created a credible perception that seriously hurt Democratic presidential candidates from 1980 through at least the early '90s.
Let's look back some fifty-sixty years, and take a 50,000 foot look at the Cold War, circa 1960. One of the strategies both sides used was the political destabilization of unfriendly governments. Both sides tried to plant operations within the other side's homeland, without much real success. For example, we know that the KGB had virtually no illegal residents within the USA after the discovery and capture of Rudolf Abel in 1957. So, while there wasn't any direct support from Moscow for groups like the New Left or the SDS, there were at least well-wishes and non-monetary support.
Mind you, opposition to the Vietnam War in and of itself wasn't disloyal. It certainly wasn't disloyal to believe that we had no business fooling around with their internal affairs. And I'm not sure that the question "What are we doing here?" ever got a coherent answer. I have heard it described as a campaign of attrition against the Soviet Union, and it's certainly true that we blew up tons and tons of Soviet-built vehicles and equipment in the jungles. The point is, it's not disloyal to question the justification of our involvement. I think it does become disloyal when you openly side with the enemy, and want your own nation to lose. There are fringes of the anti-war movement that did exactly that, and undertook criminal campaigns of robbery and bombings in support of those goals.
Fortunately, this fringe does not include most of the young activists that entered the Democratic Party in the late 1960's and early 1970's. But unfortunately, many of their attitudes informed how these activists thought. They spent the next thirty hears running like scalded dogs from anything in a uniform. They almost never saw a defense spending cut they didn't like. And in 1975, they got their fondest wish: North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, and they had a sufficient congressional majority to ban any materiel or air support for the South Vietnamese government.
I have to wonder ... did they see the re-education camps as something of a triumph? Or did they honestly not see that coming? When they learned of Cambodia's killing fields, were they filled with pride or shame? They bear a measure of responsibility for both, as do we all. We had the power and ability to support the South against the invasion, but chose not to.
This, more than anything else, is why American voters were unable to trust another Democrat with the Sword of the State until 1992. This is why Ayers and his ilk are important, because hard-core fringe leftists of his generation are still knocking around in the party. With some Democrats of a certain age, it's always 1968. They're applying forty-year-old thinking to today's problems. They're mortally afraid of another Vietnam, so much so that they're totally incapable of rationally considering when the use of our military is not only possible, but the right thing to do.
Parts of that conversation have already happened. The Truman National Security Project was just getting off the ground when I started writing this weblog, and has attracted the attention of some of the Democratic Party's leading lights. And now, a new generation is coming of age, largely untainted by the bias of their elders. Barack Obama is a man of that new generation. While he's rubbed elbows from time to time with some people who are profoundly unserious about national security, to all appearances he's not one of them. He strikes me a someone who will fight when it's necessary, but only when it's necessary. I am guardedly optimistic that he will neither let the Sword of the State get rusty from neglect, nor dull the blade from over-use.
It's time to turn the page, guys. It's not 1968 anymore, nor is it 1975. It's 2008, and we've got a full plate of problems to deal with right now. Let's snap to it.
Let's look back some fifty-sixty years, and take a 50,000 foot look at the Cold War, circa 1960. One of the strategies both sides used was the political destabilization of unfriendly governments. Both sides tried to plant operations within the other side's homeland, without much real success. For example, we know that the KGB had virtually no illegal residents within the USA after the discovery and capture of Rudolf Abel in 1957. So, while there wasn't any direct support from Moscow for groups like the New Left or the SDS, there were at least well-wishes and non-monetary support.
Mind you, opposition to the Vietnam War in and of itself wasn't disloyal. It certainly wasn't disloyal to believe that we had no business fooling around with their internal affairs. And I'm not sure that the question "What are we doing here?" ever got a coherent answer. I have heard it described as a campaign of attrition against the Soviet Union, and it's certainly true that we blew up tons and tons of Soviet-built vehicles and equipment in the jungles. The point is, it's not disloyal to question the justification of our involvement. I think it does become disloyal when you openly side with the enemy, and want your own nation to lose. There are fringes of the anti-war movement that did exactly that, and undertook criminal campaigns of robbery and bombings in support of those goals.
Fortunately, this fringe does not include most of the young activists that entered the Democratic Party in the late 1960's and early 1970's. But unfortunately, many of their attitudes informed how these activists thought. They spent the next thirty hears running like scalded dogs from anything in a uniform. They almost never saw a defense spending cut they didn't like. And in 1975, they got their fondest wish: North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, and they had a sufficient congressional majority to ban any materiel or air support for the South Vietnamese government.
I have to wonder ... did they see the re-education camps as something of a triumph? Or did they honestly not see that coming? When they learned of Cambodia's killing fields, were they filled with pride or shame? They bear a measure of responsibility for both, as do we all. We had the power and ability to support the South against the invasion, but chose not to.
This, more than anything else, is why American voters were unable to trust another Democrat with the Sword of the State until 1992. This is why Ayers and his ilk are important, because hard-core fringe leftists of his generation are still knocking around in the party. With some Democrats of a certain age, it's always 1968. They're applying forty-year-old thinking to today's problems. They're mortally afraid of another Vietnam, so much so that they're totally incapable of rationally considering when the use of our military is not only possible, but the right thing to do.
Parts of that conversation have already happened. The Truman National Security Project was just getting off the ground when I started writing this weblog, and has attracted the attention of some of the Democratic Party's leading lights. And now, a new generation is coming of age, largely untainted by the bias of their elders. Barack Obama is a man of that new generation. While he's rubbed elbows from time to time with some people who are profoundly unserious about national security, to all appearances he's not one of them. He strikes me a someone who will fight when it's necessary, but only when it's necessary. I am guardedly optimistic that he will neither let the Sword of the State get rusty from neglect, nor dull the blade from over-use.
It's time to turn the page, guys. It's not 1968 anymore, nor is it 1975. It's 2008, and we've got a full plate of problems to deal with right now. Let's snap to it.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Two-Week Warning (E-14)
The most interesting development since last we checked in was Colin Powell's announcement over the weekend that he was endorsing Barack Obama for the Presidency. Interesting, but not entirely unexpected. Bush used Powell like a baby would use a diaper. You think that's not gonna have repercussions? You think that will have no effect whatsoever on his views on the Republican party? An experience like that tends to burn out any party loyalty you may have ever had. Truth to tell, he was probably done with 'em in 2004. You may well ask, then, why didn't he endorse Kerry? Well, the answer's obvious. Kerry (aka Herman Munster) was a doofus. A well-connected, well-educated doofus, but a doofus nonetheless.
It's somewhere between hard and impossible to tell what effect that's going to have on the election going forward. The thing's got immense momentum and inertia at this point. It would take a truly earth-shattering event to push it off its trajectory. Powell's endorsement, while interesting, ain't exactly earth-shattering.
And now, the numbers:
From Pollster:
DEM: 286 (-27)
REP: 157 (+2)
Toss-Up: 95 (+25)
From Intrade:
DEM: 364, 84.7% chance to win (+/- 0 EV, +0.5%)
REP: 174, 15.3% chance to win (+/- 0 EV, +0.2%)
And a bonus, FiveThirtyEight.com:
DEM: 344.8
REP: 193.2
The thing I like about FiveThirtyEight is that they do something like a Monte Carlo simulation of possible results, and pick the expected result that way. If you're looking to bet the spread, this is what I'd use for a guide.
Notice that Pollster seems to be indicating a tightening race. That's to be expected, this close in. The polls almost always narrow in the last two weeks. Will they narrow enough to actually push enough votes McCain's way? Not unless he can pry some of Obama's softer support away ... and he's effectively conceded Colorado. It's hard for me to see where McCain gets enough pulled away to make a difference.
I'll forego the usual section on who needs to do what, the time for that has passed. Now, it's all about execution and follow-through. But, early voting began yesterday in Texas, and I have a few unscientific eyewitness reports, namely, my wife's and my own. I voted Monday, she voted today, and we both saw more or less the same thing. There were lines at the early voting places, both in the morning and at lunchtime. And everyone expects the lines to get longer the closer we get to November 4th.
This is gonna be a high-turnout year, folks. That's not good news for the Republicans. As Charles Dickens allegedly said once, "A contented, well-breakfasted juryman is a capital thing to get hold of. Discontented jurymen always find for the plaintiff."
The Way to Bet: I'm going to go out on a limb and say Obama takes it with about 340 electoral votes. McCain might be able to chisel that down some, but not enough to change the overall outcome.
It's somewhere between hard and impossible to tell what effect that's going to have on the election going forward. The thing's got immense momentum and inertia at this point. It would take a truly earth-shattering event to push it off its trajectory. Powell's endorsement, while interesting, ain't exactly earth-shattering.
And now, the numbers:
From Pollster:
DEM: 286 (-27)
REP: 157 (+2)
Toss-Up: 95 (+25)
From Intrade:
DEM: 364, 84.7% chance to win (+/- 0 EV, +0.5%)
REP: 174, 15.3% chance to win (+/- 0 EV, +0.2%)
And a bonus, FiveThirtyEight.com:
DEM: 344.8
REP: 193.2
The thing I like about FiveThirtyEight is that they do something like a Monte Carlo simulation of possible results, and pick the expected result that way. If you're looking to bet the spread, this is what I'd use for a guide.
Notice that Pollster seems to be indicating a tightening race. That's to be expected, this close in. The polls almost always narrow in the last two weeks. Will they narrow enough to actually push enough votes McCain's way? Not unless he can pry some of Obama's softer support away ... and he's effectively conceded Colorado. It's hard for me to see where McCain gets enough pulled away to make a difference.
I'll forego the usual section on who needs to do what, the time for that has passed. Now, it's all about execution and follow-through. But, early voting began yesterday in Texas, and I have a few unscientific eyewitness reports, namely, my wife's and my own. I voted Monday, she voted today, and we both saw more or less the same thing. There were lines at the early voting places, both in the morning and at lunchtime. And everyone expects the lines to get longer the closer we get to November 4th.
This is gonna be a high-turnout year, folks. That's not good news for the Republicans. As Charles Dickens allegedly said once, "A contented, well-breakfasted juryman is a capital thing to get hold of. Discontented jurymen always find for the plaintiff."
The Way to Bet: I'm going to go out on a limb and say Obama takes it with about 340 electoral votes. McCain might be able to chisel that down some, but not enough to change the overall outcome.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Debate 3: The End Is Nigh (E-19)
McCain finally, finally, at long last brought his A-game to the debate. I think he stayed about even on points. But he lost out on style, I think. His testy, angry demeanor is a really hard sell. He closes out the debate season with, at best, three draws. The news is unlikely to get any better in the next two weeks.
And now, the numbers:
From Pollster:
DEM: 313 (-7)
REP: 155 (-8)
Toss-Up: 70 (+15)
And from Intrade:
DEM: 364, 84.2% chance to win (+26 EV, +12.1%)
REP: 174, 15.6% chance to win (-26 EV, -10.9%)
I am really, really wishing I'd bought in on Obama at 48% ... The guys who did are absolutely making a killing. On the flip side, the poor slobs who bought in on McCain at his 52% peak are losing their shirts. Hopefully only virtually speaking. I'm still not sure if any real money changes hands, here.
In any case, back to the debate. Which, strictly speaking, is less of a debate than it is a weird kind of dual press conference. But that's beside the point. John McCain really came out swinging last night, making one last valiant effort to land a knockout punch head-to-head on live TV. It would have put some life back into this race if he had. He never could close the deal, though. The closest he came was with his question about Obama's background with that William Ayers. But there's not much substance there, and besides, the economy is what has people sweating bullets today, not what some washed-up ex-hippie did with his summer vacation forty years ago. (Ayers, and people like him are important. There's an internal conversation the Democrats simply have to have amongst themselves, sooner or later. But that's a rabbit I want to chase another day.)
I've said it before: the extent to which this race turns on the economy is the margin of McCain's defeat. It may not be right or fair, but that issue is simply death for the Republicans this year, all up and down the ticket. All skill is in vain when an angel pees down your rifle barrel. And there's just not enough time left to reverse the slide.
Stick a fork in him, boys.
What John McCain Must Do: Go down swinging, for the honor of the Regiment. There's not much else to do at this point.
What Barack Obama Must Do: Don't do what this guy did:
It's never too late to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Complacency kills.
The Way To Bet: If you can still find someone fool enough to take the bet, Intrade's giving an astonishing 5 to 1 in Obama's favor at this point. Barring something completely crazy happening, that's almost a sure thing.
Next update: Tuesday, October 21, the two-week mark.
And now, the numbers:
From Pollster:
DEM: 313 (-7)
REP: 155 (-8)
Toss-Up: 70 (+15)
And from Intrade:
DEM: 364, 84.2% chance to win (+26 EV, +12.1%)
REP: 174, 15.6% chance to win (-26 EV, -10.9%)
I am really, really wishing I'd bought in on Obama at 48% ... The guys who did are absolutely making a killing. On the flip side, the poor slobs who bought in on McCain at his 52% peak are losing their shirts. Hopefully only virtually speaking. I'm still not sure if any real money changes hands, here.
In any case, back to the debate. Which, strictly speaking, is less of a debate than it is a weird kind of dual press conference. But that's beside the point. John McCain really came out swinging last night, making one last valiant effort to land a knockout punch head-to-head on live TV. It would have put some life back into this race if he had. He never could close the deal, though. The closest he came was with his question about Obama's background with that William Ayers. But there's not much substance there, and besides, the economy is what has people sweating bullets today, not what some washed-up ex-hippie did with his summer vacation forty years ago. (Ayers, and people like him are important. There's an internal conversation the Democrats simply have to have amongst themselves, sooner or later. But that's a rabbit I want to chase another day.)
I've said it before: the extent to which this race turns on the economy is the margin of McCain's defeat. It may not be right or fair, but that issue is simply death for the Republicans this year, all up and down the ticket. All skill is in vain when an angel pees down your rifle barrel. And there's just not enough time left to reverse the slide.
Stick a fork in him, boys.
What John McCain Must Do: Go down swinging, for the honor of the Regiment. There's not much else to do at this point.
What Barack Obama Must Do: Don't do what this guy did:
It's never too late to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Complacency kills.
The Way To Bet: If you can still find someone fool enough to take the bet, Intrade's giving an astonishing 5 to 1 in Obama's favor at this point. Barring something completely crazy happening, that's almost a sure thing.
Next update: Tuesday, October 21, the two-week mark.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Video Del Fuego, Part XI
When you take a fool on a roof, and add a trampoline, you just know it'll end in tears. Remember, kids, don't try this at home!
(Hat tip: failblog.org, which has some seriously funny stuff.)
(Hat tip: failblog.org, which has some seriously funny stuff.)
Video Del Fuego, Part IX
Words fail me:
Granted, I've witnessed car-surfing before, though I've never participated. But in every instance I've seen to date, the surfer and the driver were always two different people. Now tell me: how does someone get so wasted that they would think that this could possibly end in anything other than twisted wreckage, searing pain, and abject humiliation, and still be conscious? Obviously, this is not possible. No, the only rational explanation is that this man is dumber than a sack of used diapers.
Granted, I've witnessed car-surfing before, though I've never participated. But in every instance I've seen to date, the surfer and the driver were always two different people. Now tell me: how does someone get so wasted that they would think that this could possibly end in anything other than twisted wreckage, searing pain, and abject humiliation, and still be conscious? Obviously, this is not possible. No, the only rational explanation is that this man is dumber than a sack of used diapers.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Video Del Fuego, Part VIII
More jet-powered steamy goodness!
Taking a break from the election, it's time to take another look at machines with far more horsepower than sense. Previously, we've seen jet packs, bicycles, Buzz Lightyear wings, and a Dodge Caravan. Now, prepare yourself for ... the jet-powered go-kart!
That one looks like it's got a gas turbine driving the axle. This one, though, is far closer to what I had in mind.
I guarantee, if you're behind the wheel of one of these suckers, tail-gaters will give your bumper a wide berth. That is, unless they like the idea of your jet-blast stripping their paint off...
Taking a break from the election, it's time to take another look at machines with far more horsepower than sense. Previously, we've seen jet packs, bicycles, Buzz Lightyear wings, and a Dodge Caravan. Now, prepare yourself for ... the jet-powered go-kart!
That one looks like it's got a gas turbine driving the axle. This one, though, is far closer to what I had in mind.
I guarantee, if you're behind the wheel of one of these suckers, tail-gaters will give your bumper a wide berth. That is, unless they like the idea of your jet-blast stripping their paint off...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
