Frange Rants; Why a car built by reject kids can do 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, 50 mpg, on <$2.00/gal soybean biodiesel; and won't hit the marketplace.

Mandatory Preamble: I'm loath to talk about politics or economics on here; that is not for what I intended this space, and there are few areas colored more gray than which political or economic view is "right." However, as my last post on diamonds will attest, there are stories I read from time to time that cause such a sufficiently incendiary reaction in me; I must breach protocol and speak out.

So apologies for two posts in a row without your expected fare of meaty retrospective self-analysis seasoned with several tablespoons of popular media.

But, to get things started, just so you aren't totally left in want for silly movie references; I'll quote just about my favorite dialogue exchange for starting a duel, from The Princess Bride:

Inigo: "So you're ready then?"

Westley: "Whether I am or not, you've been more than fair."

Inigo: "You seem a decent fellow, I hate to kill you..."

Westley: "You seem a decent fellow, I hate to die..."

Inigo: "Begin..."

I think that, (and don't go all Mr. Miyagi on me and tell me that staying in the middle-of-the-road will get me "squashed like grape") in just about any conflict worth fighting for, both sides are right, certainly from their point of view, but often objectively as well.

(Insert obligatory Star Wars reference about Luke Skywalker getting upset about learning that Obi-Wan lied to him about what happened to his father; then backtracked by saying that what he said was true, "From a certain point of view..." Okay, so the post isn't completely without it's pop culture crap; I can't help it.)

During one of my Philosophy classes in college, I argued that quite possibly the number one determinant for one's stance on any number of "hotbed" world issues is Geography. Of course, geography influences so many other factors that are the "real" reasons, but consider this: If I were born in, say, Kabul, Afganistan; my opinions on "The War on Terror" would almost certainly be different from, and likely at odds with, most people in America. But would I be wrong?

Judging someone or something that we don't understand, is, in my opinion, mankind's greatest folly. If anything is going to lead to the end of the human race and/or the planet Earth, I'm guessing it could all be traced back to a misinformed decision. If anything is holding us back from true peace and happiness as a people, it's prejudice and jealousy; it's a lack of understanding, a resultant erroneous emotion, and an irrational reaction.

In the race of life, I often think the Republican "hands off" approach is a good idea; if people can sprint, let them sprint. But when I see that those hands could be picking up runners who have fallen, or clearly gotten tripped or pushed, maybe even by one of those sprinters, and it wasn't their fault; well, then I start to question myself. Maybe the Democrat's way of having a few policemen stopping traffic now and again isn't so bad. Sure, you can't go as fast as you want, but a lot less people get hurt, and at least the people in the back have a chance. But then I start to think again about the people in the back that are only there because they're lazy, and they know that eventually someone will give them a hand; and the people in front will have to wait for them, and that's not fair.

The fact is, it's not cut-and-dry, and while I respect people for taking a side and defending it, because I really can't do it and keep a straight face when someone points out a clear deficiency; there's a reason why politics and economics can be argued till the cows come home without a clear "winner."

So, all that said; I'm usually all for capitalism and the free market, it tends to be able to regulate itself out of problems with competition and innovation, but every once in a while, I'm reminded of the dark side; the occasional occurrence where the greed and power of the few results in stymied growth of technology and effeciency, and that affects all of us.

My favorite story to tell on this subject used to be how a couple of MIT grad students designed a car battery that ran on 5 pounds of sugar, never needed replacing (except the sugar), was environmentally friendly, and was just as reliable and powerful as your normal acid battery. GM approached the guys and offered to buy their idea outright for a lump sum; the kids agreed, and the sugar battery was buried.

Lately, the whole DRM (Digital Rights Management) and HDCP (Hardware Data Copy Protection) thing has been my favorite, with the MPAA, Hollywood, Microsoft, Intel, and others obviously trying to hold back and hamstring new technologies so they can try and make more money for longer, despite the historical precedent (set from audio and video cassette recorders), that eventually, we'll probably just be able to record whatever the hell we want.

Well, here's my new favorite:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

The fact that we've heard all about hybrids and even to some extent, Hydrogen-Cell powered cars; why hasn't biodiesel gotten the same cred?

I mean, who's the #1 producer (and exporter) of Soybeans in the WORLD??? Uh.. I dunno... US?

I really hope there's something behind this story that was conveniently left out; something that "breaks" the viability of this technology. Because if a car built by highschool dropouts and dysfunctional kids who were, "rummaging for parts, configuring wires and learning as they went" can have that kind of performance, using that fuel; I really see no reason why this tech has been left in the cold, other than the greed of the auto industry and oil companies.

I'm no expert, but if oil-lovin' Bush is going to get up during the State of the Union Address and start talking (ahem) seriously about really using alternative energy, then I'd assume he's willing to make the necessary infrastructure changes (and probably tax breaks) so alternative fuels are accessible and affordable to people who choose to go with Hydrogen, Ethanol, or Biodiesel. And if the fuel can be made accessible, I don't really see why biodiesel can't be at least part of the solution to start cutting back our oil imports. (BTW, Ethanol can be made from Corn, and we grow plenty of that too...)

I mean, given that we tend to regularly go about sippin' the Haterade on a bunch of countries, including Venezuela, (who jumped into third place in December on our crude import list past Saudi Arabia, behind only Canada and Mexico;) well, maybe we should have a plan if Chavez decides to stop playing the role of the South Park "Heeeey Guy" nice-guy Saddam, and starts talking to OPEC about hitting us with the oil price stick.