McCain comes out number one, Romney number two and the person who spent, it seemed, the last ten months campaigning in Florida, Giuliani, is third.

Giuliani ran third, his best showing of the campaign but not nearly good enough for the one-time front-runner who decided to make his last stand in a state that is home to tens of thousands of transplanted New Yorkers.

Last stand? Giuliani didn’t even make a “first stand.” His campaign manager should be flipping burgers at Wendy’s by Wednesday of next week. How does “no campaign” = “a campaign”? What part of “let’s stay out of the public eye whilst campaigning for President” resembles anything close to a winning strategy?

Huckabee came out fourth, Ron Paul fifth.

McCain now has more delegates than Romney.

It is rumored that Giuliani may throw his support to McCain.

Thompson is gone, Giuliani is essentially gone, Huckabee is diminishing, Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul. The future will be between Romney and McCain.

Wrap your brain around that one, boys and girls.

When I customarily see, hear or read of an issue or event, I like doing what I call the “logical extension” — that is, given the nature of human beings, how can they push the envelope ever further? What is the next step? What does it mean? Where will it (or can it) likely be going?

Well, I am sorry to say I missed a “logical extension” that has been staring us in our faces for at least two weeks; I’ve only now done the L.E. and made a frightening conclusion. And from such a small story, and such a small object — but with absolutely huge implications.

India’s Tata Motors (I had visions of some smarmy graphics or links here, the likes of which I shall not indulge) rolled out their new Nano automobile in early January. The Tata Nano takes the mantle of the world’s cheapest car — priced at $2,500 to around $3,000 (100,000 rupees in Indian currency).

This is a vehicle crafted to be pitched to “the masses” at a price that, literally, millions of people may be able to afford.

The four-door Nano is a little over 10 feet long and nearly 5 feet wide. It is powered by a 623cc two-cylinder engine at the back of the car. With 33 horsepower, the Nano is capable of 65 miles an hour. Its four small wheels are at the absolute corners of the car to improve handling. There is a small trunk, big enough for a duffel bag.

No information yet on its curb weight or mileage estimates. And yes, it is a gasoline-powered engine.

I have mostly owned motorcycles and economy cars in my life, by fiscal necessity. I had a 1974 Subaru GL, a 1979 VW Rabbit, then a 1985 Chevy Sprint, actually manufactured by Suzuki, possessing (as I was fond of saying) “993 throbbing and pulsating cc’s packed into three massive cylinders.”

Yes. My new ’85 Chevy Sprint didn’t even have a 1 litre engine. It shipped with a left door mirror (I had to order the right door mirror later), cloth seats, a 4-speed manual tranny, crank windows, and no air conditioning. On a trip to Santa Cruz, I got an actual observed 55 mpg out of that thing. I was, however, ridiculed at work because my fellow employees said I would save additional bucks by purchasing Hoover “Carpet Master” tires instead of real tires.

My Sprint was retired in 1987 when it was struck amidships in the rain on I-5 by a 1977 Kenworth, having been knocked into the K-Wobbly’s lane by an uninsured asshole who sped by me and lost control. My poor car ended up being a good 1.5′ less wide than when issued from the factory. 1987 was a bad year: the accident almost killed me, I got a divorce, then was shot at and missed (by about an inch) by a recalcitrant DA investigator. But that’s another story only to be revealed after numerous shots of Stoly.

From there, I purchased a 1989 Geo Metro. It didn’t get quite the mileage, general high 30s and low 40s.

After a few other failures, I purchased a dark green 1999 Chevy Metro — my absolute favorite small car. And probably most responsible for my skin cancer since its windows were inches from the side of my face. I customized this car as much as I could, hard-tinting all its windows, upgrading its seat covers, purchasing the back storage cover, upgrading its stereo. It got a consistent 40+ mpg. It once acquired 50 mpg on a long freeway trip. My then-girlfriend backed up into it and dented the hood, which she never replaced (though she swore she would — the beginning of the end, as it were). But that’s another story.

I already predicted $100 a barrel oil.

From there, a cramped 2004 Subaru Outback Sport, to my current roomy 2007 Toyota RAV4 SUV with the chipped 280-hp V6 engine (which kicks much ass and is, essentially, a Q-Ship).

Back to the Tata Nano, and the application of this “logical extension” thing.

I’ll make it brief:

A $2,500 car = hundreds of thousands of buyers in India.

Which means China will have to produce its own version of the People’s Nano (if not allowed for immediate import into China proper).

Which means more gas. More gas. More GAS. For those thirsty, thirsty nouveau-riche car owners.

Which means more global competition for limited gas production. Not limited gas — limited gas production. Refineries.

WE won’t drill our resources. We won’t tap what we have. We already get the bulk of our oil from our northern neighbor, Canada. You know, oil sands, Alberta and the like.

Enjoy what you have for a few years. Right or wrong, my analysis being greedy or self-centered, you’d best adjust. This isn’t just an exhibition; this is a full-out competition for oil. And I know who I want to win. I want us to use carrier groups, FA-18s, cruise missiles, nukes, be my guest.

Why — would it be — the AMERICAN TAXPAYER?

And with those monies, what will you GET? How far will you be stripped? How far will you be pushed? Before, under dire petrol straits, when will you actually expect some kind of return for your investment?

And the true facts about the biased study have, oddly enough (are you sitting down?) been purposely smothered by the so-called Mainstream Media (MSM). After all, have you heard or read about its debunking? I suspect not.

Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe writes:

. . . there was great interest when the Lancet published a study in October 2006, three weeks before the midterm US elections, reporting that 655,000 people had died in Iraq as a result of the US-led war.

But the truth, it turns out, is that the report was drenched with politics, and its jaw-dropping conclusions should have inspired anything but confidence.

Much of the funding for the study came from the Open Society Institute of leftist billionaire George Soros, a strident critic of the Iraq war who, as Munro and Cannon point out, “spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004.”

Coauthors Burnham and Roberts were avowed opponents of the Iraq war, and submitted their report to The Lancet on the condition that it be published
before the election.

But because it served the interests of those eager to discredit the war as a moral catastrophe, common-sense standards were ignored. “In our view, the Hopkins study stands until someone knocks it down,” editorialized the Baltimore Sun.

Now someone has, devastatingly. But will the debunking be trumpeted as loudly and clearly as the original report? Don’t hold your breath.

Indeed! Though not widely publicized (imagine that), the DemocraticUnderground had to chime in with its two cents, and one of the very first comments attacks The Boston Globe itself — you know, the same Boston Globe, in the city of Boston, both of which are bastions of horrendous Right Wing activity. Give me a damned break.

And of course, let’s not forget the all-hallowed personal attacks:

Not just to Hillary, but to the GOP as well.

Hillary hied her ass directly into her rental jet the moment the polls in South Carolina closed. The writing was on the wall and she knew it. Results:

Yes, Barack Obama delivered another roundhouse kick to the sagging (sorry, read: experienced) jowls of the Hillary Regime.

This is SO not in keeping with The Great Plan. The Great Plan consisted of one sole strategy: Hillary Clinton running roughshod over any competitor, supported by every Demorat, for two primary reasons: 1) She is a Clinton and 2) She thusly deserves it. She honestly and truly believes: she is owed this Presidency.

The problem is this: Hillary is simply a polarizing entity within the Demorat party. She is (as I have bleated forever) insufficently Left for The Left. Because of this polarization, if she wins or loses it will not be by a wide margin.

Because of this innate polarization, I submit that Hillary is more inherently “beatable” by the GOP than Barack Obama. And I will tell you, in the most base terms, precisely why:

1. Hillary doesn’t have a lock on what’s left of “feminists”;

2. When Hillary opens her mouth, it’s reminiscent of nails screeching on a chalkboard;

3. No one admires thick ankles;

4. She wields power in its most abject fashion and people recognize this on a subliminal level;

5. Many will hold for Hillary when, in fact, in the back of their brains they still want Bill;

6. Hillary represents Old School;

7. Obama represents New School;

8. Obama doesn’t spew Black Urban Gutterspeak;

9. He’s White enough to not be immediately threatening on the first-glance-surface;

10. He is well-groomed, wears a suit, has a presence;

11. He doesn’t have a southern accent; that in and of itself kills Edwards and killed Thompson;

12. People are so OVER with ANYONE possessing a so-called “southern accent”;

And here is what I think appeals to a good number of persons about Obama:

He is a younger, darker Bill Clinton: dynamic, a presence, willing to be what you want him to be when you want him to be it. Anyone remember what Joe Biden said about Obama?

So: could the GOP beat Hillary? Yes, I believe that is possible.

Could the GOP beat Obama?

The bulk of the electorate, quite frankly, votes its emotive gut. Bottom line: who is more likeable? Hillary or Obama?

I think we can all do the math on that one.

I so wanted to enjoy this movie!

I’m a child of the ’50s, literally raised on monster movies. The trailers looked enticing. Something of a modern-day Godzilla with current CG technology? I couldn’t wait!

I saw Cloverfield the weekend it opened.

When it finished, just shy of 90 minutes later, my wife was physically sick and I had to relinquish my next movie pick. I was not pleased.

JJ Abrams, involved with the TV series Lost (which I actually enjoy) seems to think that “cheap” is the way to go. Don’t get me wrong; there were a few compelling scenes in the film. But a few scenes does not an excellent movie make.

Problem # 1:

The Shaky Video Camera Syndrome (a la Blair Witch Project) is SO passe. It is SO yesterday and, now, overdone. No one told us: the ENTIRE film is based upon one asshole holding a videocam and — moreover, the shaking NEVER FUCKING STOPS. It only gets worse. It made my wife physically sick, which is why I write this post to warn others.

Beginning with the SVCS, in a film that is under 90 minutes, the entire lead-up to the actual realization is not only banal, it is beyond boring. JJ: dude, your characters are cardboard. The “party shots” go on and on and on — oh, let me be generous — about FIFTEEN MINUTES TOO LONG. Because of this, you force the audience to not give a shit about who lives or who dies. Your two male leads look too much like each other. I know: let’s not only piss off the audience, but let’s confuse them.

If your characters are representative of this current generation, with limited vocabularies such as you display, then I recommend the monster and its concomitant louses kill all of our kids. Kill them all. They have not the mental capacity or verbosity to deserve life.

Don’t spend your $10 on this movie. And even when it comes to DVD, hold it at arms-length. Trust me: it’ll get stamped to DVD in a month or two, discounted by Costco or Sam’s Club. Rent it, don’t buy it. You’ll thank me for the savings you incurred.