My thoughts on Danica Patrick and her Daytona 500 pole position

Oh, this title…

Danica Patrick working that poleDanica Patrick has leapt back into the motor racing headlines by becoming the first woman to secure pole for the 2013 NASCAR Cup opener at Daytona. Previously, the highly popular 30-year-old American, who is stealing the show at the pinnacle of US motor sport, has insisted she has little interest in exploring her options in Formula One. But could more doors open now?

Good grief, I don’t think so. And neither do those in the know:

Sebastian Vettel : “First of all, hats off to Danica for her achievements. But motor sport in the US just has a completely different culture.”

Helmut Marko : “You have to look at Danica’s results in the road races. It’s not enough. We are looking for drivers based on performance, not by quota.”

Niki Lauda : “For ten years. I’ve told Bernie Ecclestone he’s dopey for not getting a woman into Formula One. If we could get a woman into the top six, you would immediately have twice as many fans in front of the TV. It has to be said that the technical level in the US does not compare to the level in Formula One. This is also reflected in the drivers. The last American who had success in Europe was Mario Andretti — and that was in my day!”

The sad thing is, Lauda is right. Chuck a hot woman into the mix and you’re gonna get bums on seats and eyes on the TVs. Take a look at Anna Kournikova who, while a competent tennis player, never won a Grand Slam title and often was never seen after the first round. But her hot little ass was guaranteed to sell more tickets and get higher TV ratings and so she was always invited to tournaments in which she had no chance of progressing to the final.


The list of female F1 drivers is pretty short and unfortunately the latest candidate, Spaniard Maria De Villota, crashed and lost an eye while testing for Marussia last year. She was talented, and at the end of the day I’d rather watch talented drivers than attractive drivers in the World Drivers Championship.

My thoughts on the 2012 election results

Hey folks, so America voted Black and they certainly didn’t go Back. Not for another four years anyhow. And not for an idiot who looks more like an actor President than a real President with his dapper good looks, dazzling white teeth and perfectly coiffed hair.

America chose the lesser of two evils, thankfully, but this just highlights the weakness of their system.

This should have been a slam dunk for Romney, so how did he mess this up so badly? From his $10000 bet, to the binders full of women, to the 47% of America he dismissed, it just seemed a never ending series of gaffes and cringe-inducing idiocy. Never mind his history and how he built his fortune by profiting from the misfortune of others which, to be honest, was brought up less than it should have been. He just seemed like an oily, sleazy, Wall Street shark. A less lovable version of Gordon Gecko, and hopelessly out of touch with the America he wants to run into the ground and profit from.

On Tolerance

Something I picked up on Google Plus today:

Inigo says: You keep using that word, “tolerance” …incorrectly. He’d tell us to look it up and try again, but it’s been changed. I wasn’t even aware until tonight (I guess I’m a rotten word nerd). It always irked me when people said it in a sentence because I always thought, “What? I need to put up with that? Don’t you mean ‘embrace’, ‘empathize’ or ‘give leeway to’?”. Stay with me, folks.

See, years ago, Miriam Webster defined “tolerant” as: “To bear or put up with someone or something not especially liked.” With that in mind, doesn’t it seem really silly that in 85% percent of cultures around the world, tolerance is the #1 virtue? Nowadays, modern dictionaries define it as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own”. What happened? Have we become so wrapped up as a society with being PC about stuff, that words are being fucked with?

With me still? Good. Here’s the lesson:
Classic tolerance has nothing to do with accepting another’s belief, only his or her right to have that belief. True tolerance respects and accepts individuals without necessarily approving of or participating in their beliefs, values, or behavior. Respect for the viewpoints and practices of others is not the same as agreement or moral endorsement. It simply means the ability to hold on to one’s convictions while accepting the right of others to hold on to theirs.

“I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” -Voltaire


I don’t care if he’s a Church member. He’s a rich good-ol-boy lookin’ to make another buck. He’s being drowned in campaign contributions from Wall St, so who do you think is going to call the shots if he gets elected? Every time history repeats itself, the cost of the lesson goes up. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Obama fan either. The only candidate I was even remotely drawn to was Ron Paul, but it looks like he’s been squeezed out a corrupt system.

My political persuasions

I took a test at to find that I am mostly leftist (as defined by them) and mostly balanced between being Authoritarian and Libertarian:

Economic Left/Right: -4.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

To compare me with other world leaders:

I'm most like Ghandi

And to compare with the 2012 US Presidential candidates:

I always thought I identified with Ron Paul on a lot of issues and would probably vote for him. To be fair, a lot of these questions aren’t all that valid for an Australian audience and aimed mostly at US voters who tend to have black and white extremes with no middle ground.