Moving day.

I have given up on news satire. At least, I have given up on Yodelling Llama as a news satire site. I haven't updated the damned thing for some time. So instead, I'm moving this blog over there. So this is my last post here. See future posts at yodellingllama.com. I was using bBlog, on the quasi-recommendation of Molino. I couldn't work out the kinks. Now I'm using WordPress, and I have yet to see whether it will function as expected.

Achewood.

"The WORST way to cook a hot dog? Point a keychain laser at it. I wasted almost an hour!"

With all deliberate speed.

I am sick to the teeth of people commenting on the "oxymoronic" nature of the phrase "with all deliberate speed" which appeared in the majority opinion in Brown II. Yes, "deliberate" can be defined as "slow" (as Wiktionary's fourth definition indicates). But it can also simply "well-advised" and "carefully considered," or even simply "intentional" (taken from other Wiktionary definitions). All of which are perfectly consistent with "speed."

Similarly, when my Federal Courts textbook referred to City of Canton v. Harris's "deliberate indifference" standard as being an "oxymoron," I think the authors have stumbled upon a too-narrow definition.

What is it with people and "deliberate"?

Negotiable pollution credits.

There are some industries that produce certain undesirable byproducts (say, Chemical X) as part of their operations. For some of those industries (say, Industry A), creating Chemical X is economically necessary. If the U.S. forces Industry A to reduce its Chemical X output by 5%, Industry A's costs will rise by 5%. If the U.S. forces Industry A to reduce its Chemical X output by 20%, Industry A's costs will rise by 50%. And if Chemical X is reduced by 50%, Industry A will cease to exist in the U.S.

For other industries (say, Industry B), producing Chemical X is only economically valuable. So if the U.S. forces Industry B to reduce its Chemical X output by 5%, its costs will rise by 1%. If Industry B is forced to reduce its Chemical X output by 20%, its costs will rise by 5%. And if Chemical X is reduced by 50%, Industry B's costs will rise by 20%.

Under an old regulatory structure, someone would propose a 20% reduction in Chemical X. Industry A would fight it, pointing out that if such a regulation were enforced, Industry A would have to double its prices, hurting consumers, and eventually leading to the downfall of Industry A in the U.S. Industry A would likely win that argument, either completely negating any regulation, or placing it closer to a 5% reduction.

Under the negotiable pollution credit regime, you can get your overall reduction in Chemical X at something approaching the 20% level. Why? Let's say both Industry A and Industry B currently produce 1,000,000 tons of Chemical X every year. Now they're given 800,000 "credits," each of which is permission from the government to create one ton of Chemical X, after which the fines start coming (and let's say that each uncredited ton of Chemical X is going to equal about 1% of Industry A's current costs).

If the "credits" were nonnegotiable, this isn't very different from the old system. Industry B would almost certainly make the modifications to its processes (increasing its costs by 5%) and use all 800,000 credits. Industry A may make a few modifications, reducing its Chemical X output by 5% (also increasing its costs by 5%), use all 800,000 credits, then hope it doesn't get caught when it creates 150,000 uncredited tons of Chemical X, because a 150000% increase in costs is likely no different than going out of business.

Now watch what happens when the "credits" become negotiable. Industry B makes modifications, increasing its costs by 20%, to reduce its Chemical X output to 500,000 tons per year. It takes the other 300,000 credits and sells them to other industries. Industry A would purchase 150,000 credits from Industry B at a price less than 45% of its costs (because if more, Industry A would simply make its own modifications), but more than 15% of Industry B's costs. Looking good. Looking very good.

Yodelling Llama.

I have been very lax as of late at updating Yodelling Llama (the satire site, not this blog). Part of the reason is that I have been writing more regularly for inter alia, my MySpace blog, and this blog. Part of the reason is that I have been otherwise occupied. But I am also considering shutting Yodelling Llama down as a satire site. My heart just isn't in it anymore. I think I'll leave the archives up there, but move my blog over. Soon.

Pressure Drop.

I was thumbing through the latest edition of Rolling Stone when I saw an advertisement for a Toots and the Maytals box set. Now, I'm not a big reggae fan. It all sounds like shitty, depressed ska to me anyway. But I did note a title included: "Pressure Drop." Now, I know "Pressure Drop" from the Clash. And the Specials. And I kinda liked it. Now I have one fewer reason to like the Clash. And the Specials. Oh well.

Sandman.

For some reason, although I have basically read everything else Neil Gaiman has written (including Don't Panic, his guide to H2G2), I avoided The Sandman series. Why? Perhaps it had something to do with me not really being a comic book guy. (I did read the first fifteen or so issues of The Maxx when they were first released, but that isn't exactly representative.) Perhaps it had something to do with the cost (Amazon is selling paperback volumes that include eight issues for $13.57, and there are eleven volumes). And perhaps it was defensive; I didn't want to find out that one of the most revered comic series of all time was a piece of shit.

I finally caved into purchasing and reading the first volume--Preludes and Nocturnes--and I've been kicking myself ever since. What the fuck was I waiting for? This shit is glorious!

Some new blog.

My friend--who teaches at a public school somewhere in the good ol' US of fucking A--started a new blog recently to describe a certain subset of his experiences. Given that it only has three posts so far, and only one of them is moderately interesting, I'm not holding out much hope that my readers will be interested. But, since he is one of my readers, perhaps I should cut him some slack. After all, the dude can write when he applies himself. Anyway, without further adieu, here is Ocelot Sideshow.

GYWO.

I was listening to NPR last night and they had David Rees on talking about Get Your War On. Which, for some reason, I have neglected since June. Why? Because he doesn't publish often enough. But when he does, sparks fly. "Dude, if Americans tolerated as much shit in their socks as they do in the president, they'd have mushrooms growing out of their fucking ankles."

Moxie.

The Wikipedia entry for Moxie suggests that one can approximate this nauseating soft drink by adding bitters to root beer. Having not tried this approximation, but having tried the original beverage during at least two youthful jaunts New England way, I can make another suggestion:

Take a can of supermarket brand cola. Add an old cigarette butt sans paper and filter. Blend until the carbonation has evaporated. Drink, carefully and near a bucket of some sort. Then wonder why it is that New Englanders have a reputation for being brighter than other Americans.

Peter Pan.

BoingBoing recently posted a retort to the anti-Google Print crowd using the "somebody save the children" argument (apparently the copyright for Peter Pan was extended indefinitely to benefit some children's hospital). And Cory Doctorow makes some very good points therein. Worthy addition: Google Print is opt-out. Which means the copyright holder--here, this children's hospital in Britain--can contact Google and ask them not to include their book. Duh.

Set asides and agricultural subsidies.

It has been said that there is insufficient quantity of set-asides (Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, State reserves, Ted Turner's estate) in the U.S. It has also been noted that the Federal government's budget is chronically red. Which means (1) there really isn't much money to purchase additional pristine land to prevent development, and (2) we really ought to be looking for things to cut. Here's something to cut: agricultural subsidies. Watch what happens. Without the welfare funds Mr. and Mrs. Farmer have been depending upon as of late, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer cannot continue in their chosen profession. The farm fails. No one else can run it profitably as a farm. Which means its price will drop. In steps the Feds. At bargain prices, using the money it saved by not subsidizing food production, the Feds can snatch up this former farmland and let it go to seed. New wildlife territory. And at perhaps a negative cost to the taxpayer. Everybody wins!

[Yes, I know. Farming is important. I mean, where, other than from all our trading partners, can we get enough food to feed our people? And yes, I know. Converting farmland into wildland is not going to magically make all the wildlife come back. But it may have an impact, right?]

Lavender: Part III

Lisa and I ducked out of the "student reception" to attend a play while in San Diego. We did not really know the area, so we just went to the only theater we had actually passed while walking around: the Lyceum. The gentleman behind the glass told us that if we showed up an hour early and were paying cash, we could get half-priced tickets. Only $20. Not a bad deal. So we went to see the San Diego Repertory Theater's production of "Bad Dates." Which was not bad at all. Lots of shoes and things. Somewhat funny at times, but not through-and-through. Recommended. At least at the $20 ticket level.

Nasty habit.

I have a nasty habit of shifting blame away from myself, even where it gains me no advantage. My partner and I scheduled a telephone call with a client this morning for 10 AM. We called her cell and got voicemail. We called her office/house and got voicemail. We gave up calling, because she had previously indicated that she had a 10:30 appointment, and couldn't talk for more than fifteen minutes anyway.

Apparently she had set her cell to vibrate and that is why she missed the call. She called back a few minutes later and found we had already stepped out of the office. Then she sent an apologetic email, explaining what had happened. Nice. But I took the "I called the office a couple of minutes after you called me and your office staff told me you were already gone" as a return shot in the game of one-upsmanship. Which is absurd. But I just had to write back and reshift the blame for the failed telephone call to her. Goddamn it; I should be less petty than this by now.

Lists of Bests.

I came upon a site called Lists of Bests. And I created, on the fly, a list of the top 36 films referenced on that site. Comments welcome.

Thorpe!

And, Christ, how the hell did Billy Corgan decide that he should be a rock star? He looked in the mirror and said "Hey! I look like a cross between Nosferatu and a penis, and I sing like Rod Stewart with a severe case of mumps doing a Peter Lorre impression! I've got what it takes!"

GLBT vs. LGBT.

Could someone please explain why one would be used, as opposed to the other?

Lavender: Part II

One of the more interesting panel discussions at the conference was an update on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Not being a military junkie, I was not as aware as perhaps I should have been just how little DADT differed from its predecessor policy. Apparently the 1993 DADT policy changed two words. Two words!

DADT was not really a compromise. It was a face-saving measure for Clinton. Which is not to say things have not improved for GLBT persons in the military. One of the panelists noted anecdotally that some commanding officers will, when a gay serviceman submits his "I'm gay" resignation, attempt to solve the harassment problems that led to the resignation in the first place and shred the evidence. Partly this is a wartime phenomenon--who can afford to lose any able-bodied and generally willing individual?--but it also reflects a change in the culture. Good news.

But the policy itself, because it continues to be premised on bizarre beliefs, is an affront to at least my sensibilities. Yes, the public arguments in favor of the policy have moved away from the more egregious examples (we don't hear "homosexual assault will be a serious problem if we allow gays in the military" or "gay men cannot fight as well as straight men" in courtrooms very often anymore). But for every silly argument that is discredited, another pops into its place. The panelists noted two modern arguments: (1) that straight servicewomen and -men will become uncomfortable around out GLBTs, and this will degrade unit cohesion, and (2) that gay and lesbian servicewomen and -men will "fraternize" with each other, and this will degrade unit cohesion. The second becomes less plausible (at least as a doomsday scenario) when one notes that, in most areas of the military, heterosexual men and women currently share close quarters, and even to the extent that they do not follow orders not to fuck each other, we certainly have not seen a complete breakdown in the effectiveness of the unit. The first is supported by bogus polling data and biases that, with time, will become less of an issue. Do we still have a problem with racial integration in the service? Yes. Is it enough of a problem to resegregate?

The panel discussion also dealt with some of the military court cases coming out that are interpreting Lawrence v. Texas. Most of which depressingly distinguish its "sodomy laws are unconstitutional" holding by reference to the special case that is the military. But there was at least one case mentioned--the name of which temporarily escapes me--that seemed to require sodomy and evidence that the sodomy is somehow harmful to the military. That is, nibbling on another's genitalia may no longer be sufficient. However, it was noted that although this may save heterosexual cocksuckers from jail, it may not save homosexuals. Why? Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Lovely, no?