So, what with the advent of the silly term "NASCAR Dad" and the recent kerfuffle
over Robby Gordon's complaint about women drivers being lighter, so
their car will go faster (Yes, I know that he was talking about Indy
cars, but he drives NASCAR now), I got curious about the rules that
govern NASCAR.  Now, apparently, NASCAR doesn't release its rules
publicly, but the folks who put together "A Yankee's Guide to NASCAR" have ferreted out a lot of them, and compiled the basics.

I don't have the patience to watch car racing or (or full cricket
matches), but the NASCAR rules are pretty interesting reading if you
like technology.  What I found most interesting is that there are a lot
of rules for car weight, horsepower, and technology imposed almost
entirely to ensure that the winners are sorted from the pack by the
team's talent and their luck on the day.  Just because you can afford
an Indy car that could beat the hell out of all those stock cars, that
don't mean that you get to race the Indy car against the stock cars.
That view, that talent and luck on the day ought to win out, is the
liberal position.

Liberals are comfortable with inequality of outcome.  We're
comfortable with the notion that some people are smarter or stronger
than others, and that they'll succeed while others fail.  That's pretty
much the luck of the draw.  We're even comfortable with a fair bit of
starting-point inequality -- some people are lucky enough to be born
into better circumstances, and the cultural price to really level out
those kinds of inequalities (even if it were possible) is really just
too high for most people to contemplate.  But our support for things
like public education and some publicly-funded bottom to the income
scale which falls well above starvation is based on a pretty simple
notion:  Talent and luck on the day should be more important than which
car you can bring to the race.

Liberals:  We're for NASCAR Rules.

- paperwight