DETROIT (02June2012) – For what it's worth -- in case most everyone hasn't already, learned, discerned or been told -- the male human tends toward the lineal.
So, yes, Part IV of this writer's diatribe concerning "prototype" racing is in production but, first, let us depart from the rote and ponder something that hasn't much to do at all with "prototype" racing or, for that matter, racing at Belle Isle (besides, there are more than a few hours to go before Rolex Series competitors will be disposed of avoiding risk within the concrete canyons hereupon the isle). But this post is topical and at least is tangentially associated with racing and "prototypes."
Straight up: This motorsports writer doesn't much care to associate with Scott Tucker. Attributable to personal disquiet, it's not a business nor legal thing.
Mr. Tucker is a quiet, perhaps "shy" man who at times proves difficult if not impossible with whom to converse. Put only he and me in the same room at the same time and we'd probably both become psychopathic from a lack of human interaction.
From this perspective, and given sufficient failures to do otherwise, why try to overcome that to which another doesn't seem any more inclined than oneself?
Life has served many examples of those who are disposed of quiet demeanor and thought to be egocentric. Yet, as once noted by late American entrepreneur Bernard Baruch, one is far more likely to learn when listening than when talking, anyway.
One shouldn't, most probably won't think a lack of desire to associate with Tucker is exactly earthshaking news; Tucker apparently is well short of a paddock's popularity meter’s high end, anyway, if conversations with other paddock types prove accurate and which insist Tucker as one who likely thinks a certain Carly Simon "song is about" him.
Unless a Ken Swan, Christophe Bouchut, João Barbosa, Charisa Cobb or tens-of-other racetrack support personnel directly connected to or peripherally involved in Tucker's Level 5 Motorsports racing program, the driver/owner hasn't been winning many popularity contests over the last few years -- whether Ferrari Challenge, where he's a champion; or, SCCA, where he's also a champion; and, ALMS, where he's, yep, a champion, too.
Indeed, one can fairly say Tucker and championships seem often to be in the same time zone if not zip code -- hell, even on the same neighborhood block -- and that particular personal attribute itself often is enough to invoke others' considerable contempt.
"Well, he's bought those wins!" comes a rejoinder.
Um, and exactly who hasn't? Unless this observer's grossly overlooked a major point on the subject over his six decades of racing involvement, even a local bullring race team spends big money relative to its pursuit of fireplace mantle accoutrements -- even at the local racing level more money flows to parts vendors than a family often likely would wish to spend.
"Well then, he's spent ungodly sums of money doing it!"
You mean like that which Henry Ford II spent in the middle 1960's? Or Roger Penske? How about Chip Ganassi? Heck, wanna bet Audi doesn't spend more on wind tunnel time, alone, than Tucker's cumulative racing expenditures since 2006?
For what it's worth and largely because its topical: a certain block of politicians in very recent times have spent vast, mind-boggling sums of money, too -- the principal difference being Tucker actually has achieved that which was pursued.
No, one shouldn't see this as Ol' DC apologizing for Mr. Tucker; if nothing else but for the fact that Mr. Tucker likely doesn't need anyone but himself to do such, if at all.
"But Tucker's done wrong!"
Exactly what "wrong" might that be? At this point don't get nebulous and all; be specific. Be exact with the claims. If one is insufficiently educated as to the specific legal areas in question, then personal motives need to be examined.
"Well, 'the government' said he's done wrong!"
The Federal Trade Commission in April asked a federal judge to stop certain practices undertaken by a company, AMG Services, which is controlled by Tucker.
The FTC is also undertaking various actions, investigations and opposes practices by the likes of Google, the North Carolina General Assembly (legislature), Facebook and, give or take, hundreds of others at any given moment.
To say that Tucker is "guilty" merely because "the government says so" is to say the government is guiltless in anything and everything it has ever undertaken. Surely, no one reading this is that damn dumb and, if so, there exists more than sufficient case law to demonstrate government has all too often done what it shouldn't.
"Well, Tucker's making usurious loans!"
In the opinion of this writer, so too was the pawnshop which provided DC The Younger a loan on a handgun used as collateral on a fully amortized $70 loan.
At a time when DC The Younger was still earning his UHK (University of Hard Knocks) degree and at the time having had little more than a couple of nickels in his pocket, that $35 in cash he received was a badly needed gap loan.
Yes, DC The Younger, perhaps the beneficiary of a pawn shop owner's pity, needed to repay only twice that which he borrowed inside of 30 days to retrieve his precious handgun -- one that Ol' DC retains to this day, he adds.
Yes, the overall loan cost stung a might. Yes, it was an eye-opening, lesson-filled experience for DC The Younger. And, no, neither DC The Younger nor Ol' DC ever again turned to a pawn shop -- at least for a loan.
Nor has he turned to a "payday lender," such as Mr. Tucker's business is purported to practice with a bunch of Indians (who, in Ol' DC's humble opinion, aren't "indigenous" to the Americas when the Bering "land bridge" crossing is taken into account).
Those "Indians," who likely are financially benefitting as a result of Mr. Tucker's supposed business relationship, also are finally "getting" what has too long been due to them and, absent from participation therein, one which the government itself might be envious and, through its actions, now is seeking a piece. Such pursuit wouldn't be the first it has undertaken when first "in the cold."
Bottom line: Presently, Tucker has not been adjudicated of running afoul of any action that is deemed contrary to federal statute or regulation.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who depend on paychecks generated by Mr. Tucker's undertakings -- whether profession or avocation.
Whether George Zimmerman or Scott Tucker, finding someone "guilty" without benefit of a thorough examination of the particulars in a legal proceeding is entirely at odds with what so many of us hold and speak about so highly: The Constitution.
Does the lack of adjudication suggest anyone who knows or freely associates with Tucker shouldn't be cautious or, perhaps, even altogether review an ongoing association with Tucker? Of course not. But such prudence and vigilance should at all times prevail regardless of who, what or where, anyway.
The scariest part?
Uncle Sam's purse is far deeper than yours, mine or, even, Scott Tucker's.
Anyone who can attach himself to the public purse and who seeks to grind a personal axe for whatever purpose can be a very scary thing.
Later,
DC
Just curious what promted this seemingly part diatribe, part Tucker supportive commentary? And why the conflict in your opinion?
ReplyDeleteOne primary aspect prompted the above commentary: Too many people who yell "Constitution" this and "Constitution" that seem inclined to do so only when convenient to their pursuits, but then conveniently forget the document's essential elements, such as the right of trial by a jury comprised of peers and, the most important element: a presumption of innocence until the legal process demonstrates otherwise.
ReplyDeletePut another way: Mr. Tucker and various state and federal authorities are in a dispute, at the end of which Mr. Tucker could be rendered penniless. Thus, those who argue the other side should demonstrate cause for their perspective. The sad thing: the FTC is an ADMINISTRATIVE agency which often can and has stood the Constitution on its head.
Frankly, this writer sees no inconguity of opinion. He wished it to be known that he is uncomfortable in the presence of Mr. Tucker -- as he has been a number of times, whether conversing in the front lounge of a Level5 hauler or in the pits -- if nothing else but to buttress this writer's position that disliking someone is not reason enough to strip him of his assets, his personal freedom (jail/prisons sentence) or, just as badly, applaud those who would seek to do so.
This writer is even more uncomfortable in the presence of those who convict anyone absent of a court's prior ruling on the subject.
"Disliking someone" happens frequently over the course of one's life. Though stretched to the point of incredulity, it's likely at least a few people find this writer less than likeable. Yes, it's true. Absent of harm -- depriving an innocent of property, causing physical harm or, possibly, psychological trauma -- someone having a difference of opinion is just that: the opinion of persons does at times differ.
This writer takes no distress in the simplicity of someone disliking him. It is what it is and that someone might dislike another alone isn't sufficient reason to strip that person of life, property and/or liberty.
The Supreme Court of the United States, especially in the 1950's and 1960's, has frequently weighed in on the "freedom of association" topic, finding it's roots in the Bill of Rights' First Amendment. As court opionion has likewise opined, people also possess a "right of disassociation."
That anyone would choose to dissassociate with another doesn't mean either lose any other rights as guaranteed under The Constituion simply because the parties disassociate.
Thus, this writer, while he doesn't particularly care to "hang" with Mr. Tucker, thinks it sad that others, some of whom express passionate, flag-waving zeal for The Consitution, have already convicted Mr. Tucker and, thus, abandoned the very constitutional principals otherwise so highly touted.
Methinks such "conviction" thus is rooted more in envy than in law, the latter having yet run its course and, until such happens, Mr. Tucker remains an innocent.
The avowed father of the U.S. Constituion, James Madison, in Federalist 10 speaks to the very subject of envy and that due process should prevail over human emotion, of which envy is a considerable part.
Thank you for your input.
Later,
DC