Yodelling Llama

Moving day.

2005-11-20T17:11:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-19T09:17:00.000-08:00

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

With all deliberate speed.

2005-11-18T10:28:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-16T09:07:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-11T18:52:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-08T16:39:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-07T10:13:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-07T10:09:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-07T10:02:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-06T20:59:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-05T21:18:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-03T10:58:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-03T10:41:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-03T10:36:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-02T23:10:00.000-08:00

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!

2005-11-02T11:14:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-02T09:27:00.000-08:00

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

Lavender: Part II

2005-11-02T09:13:00.000-08:00

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?

Lavender: Part I

2005-10-31T15:15:00.000-08:00

It was an interesting experience passing during the conference this past week/end. I don't think I did much to encourage--other than continuing to refer to Deb as my "partner"--but I also did not do much to discourage the other conference attendees from assuming, and treating me as gay. I'm not sure why I was so ambivalent...

Raina.

2005-10-31T12:10:00.000-08:00

The late trio that dog. had a song on its first album called "Raina." Which appears, at first glance, to be directed at a woman named "Raina." "Raina, she blew my mind. She made me sick inside." And, upon further inspection, this interpretation holds up. But nevertheless, I propose an alternate interpretation. One rife with needless difficulties. And it is this: that the song's lyrics are directed at the song itself.

The song had a mouth on "her" that you'd "never want to find." The song's singer walked the song to the door, saying she wasn't too keen on looking at "her" anymore. The song, and its chitterchat, made the singer sick inside. It makes less sense than the obvious interpretation. But it still, with the proper frame of mind, makes some sense.

And thus, when "Raina" is stuck in my head, I feel nauseous.

Pancakes.

2005-10-30T15:25:00.000-08:00

I seem to have procured a really great pancake recipe from somewhere. And I'd like to share it with my readers:

1. Melt 6 tablespoons of butter (3/4 of a stick) in a pan.
2. Beat two eggs together with 1 cup of milk in a medium-sized bowl.
3. Pour the butter into the egg mixture.
4. Stir in 1 and 1/4 cups of flour, 2 teaspoons of sugar, 4 teaspoons of baking powder, and 3/4 teaspoon of salt.
5. Pour the batter into original pan in pancake-sized dollops.
6. Cook until brown on one side, flip, then eat.
7. Repeat steps 4 and 5 until the batter is gone.
8. Drink half-gallon of orange juice to get that yummy flavor out of your mouth.

Enjoy!

Religion and masturbation.

2005-10-30T10:25:00.000-08:00

Came to a conclusion lately: religion is like masturbation. Both are perfectly natural, healthy, widely practiced activities. Both are looked upon disapprovingly by certain narrow-minded individuals. Both are often practiced by those same narrow-minded individuals. There's money to be made in the penumbra of both, although both are essentially free, noncommercial activities. And it is not really appropriate to do either in public. Or talk about either with strangers. Or try to coerce others into adopting your particular way of doing things. Sure, it isn't at all unusual or rude to have discussions, including making suggestions about technique and form, among friends. But the proselytizing over the radio--the "shock jocks" who suggest sitting on your hand so it feels like someone else is helping you out, or the "evangelists" who suggest eternal hellfire will follow nonbelievers--are simply rude. Of course I'm enough of a First Amendment junkie that I recognize banning these practices does more harm than good. But come on people. It just isn't cool to press the particulars of your button-pressing and prayer-beading on others. Especially strangers. And I think the sooner we as a society recognize this, the sooner we'll all be comfortable around most everyone.

My blog is worth HUNDREDS of dollars!

2005-10-25T11:14:00.000-07:00

My blog is worth $564.54.
How much is your blog worth?

I don't know how they calculate this. And I don't want to know. But I do want my money.

San Diego.

2005-10-24T20:19:00.000-07:00

I'm leaving on Wednesday for the Lavender Law Conference in San Diego. Which should yield a story or two...

Mash-ups I'd like to see...

2005-10-22T12:29:00.000-07:00

The Monkees's "Daydream Believer" and Henry Mancini's lovely "What's Happening!!" theme.

Another kickass game.

2005-10-21T13:31:00.000-07:00

Need for Madness is quite difficult. But quite fun. And I don't mean "quite" in any kind of bullshit half-assed sense, as some survey-writers seem to use it.

Campfire oatmeal.

2005-10-21T08:30:00.000-07:00

I was walking to school today--quickly, because I was running late--and I smelled campfire oatmeal. Beautiful.

Public defender's aside.

2005-10-18T12:37:00.000-07:00

"I'm gonna be so hard on that girl on cross, I'll make her wish she'd never been raped."

Citizen of the "No Tar" Republic.

2005-10-13T15:07:00.000-07:00

I once met a man who claimed to be a citizen of the "no tar" republic. Well, actually he said he was a "no tar" republic. But I understood what he meant. The language barrier, coming from some tar-less land to this tar-full land must have been incredible. Poor guy.

He tried to stamp my affidavit. So I hit him with a pitchfork and buried him in the peat bog out back. I can only hope his corpse felt at home, what with the total absence of tar there...

Statute drafting technique.

2005-10-12T10:35:00.000-07:00

Why, when drafting statutory, don't legislatures describe in some kind of introductory section the target of that provision? For example, Internal Revenue Code, Section 469 is clearly aimed at limited partners. But no where in that section does the phrase "limited partners" appear. And if I wasn't so damned good at spotting these things, I'd be very confused about who Congress was attempting to screw when it denied deductions for "passive activity" losses.

Beer snob.

2005-10-12T10:04:00.000-07:00

It constantly amazes me that anyone would stoop to purchasing Budweiser or MGD when there are so many quality beers available. I've stumbled upon this very new, but highly promising site called Coastr. And I've started creating my very own "Wall of Beer." Fun!

Fuck Pigs 5.

2005-10-07T12:25:00.000-07:00

"I was putting away porn tags, when suddenly I looked up and came face-to-face with the box for Fuck Pigs 5. I can still see the box. There was, of course, a woman on it, offering up her orifices for the pleasure of anyone who wanted a look. She seemed friendly, almost shy. And she was being called a fuck pig."

Porn drift.

2005-10-07T11:43:00.000-07:00

This page contains a fabulous explanation--and label--for a phenomenon I have noted while in sociology mode. "We do feature bisexual videos (and by that, of course, we mean bisexual men - bi-girl action is pretty much a given in the straight section) and every now and then someone you didn't expect will dip his first toe into the gay end of the pool."

To the editors of the Tulane Environmental Law Journal, circa 2001.

2005-10-05T14:56:00.000-07:00

I am currently researching the "Roadless Rule." Like you do. As part of that research, I stumbled upon a comment by a 2002 JD candidate at Tulane named Alison S. Hoyt entitled "Roadless Area Conservation: How the 'Roadless Rule' Affects America's Forestland." Now you must understand that I am reading it primarily to avoid conducting background research; I was hoping Ms. Hoyt found sources of relevant information, allowing me to slack off for a few more days.

Unfortunately, I no longer trust Ms. Hoyt's research. In the second paragraph of the introduction, Ms. Hoyt claims "the Property Clause of the [U.S.] Constitution...grant[s] the President and the [Forest] Service the ability to implement regulations protecting the public land." Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states "The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting...other Property belonging to the United States." While this power has been held to be delegable--and so the Forest Service in fact does have certain powers, defined by statutes, to "implement regulations protecting the public land"--the aforequoted Property Clause does not grant any powers to the President or the Forest Service.

I am nit-picking here, of course. My real beef is not with Ms. Hoyt. I would not be at all surprised to know that, if confronted with this error, she would recognize immediately the poor phrasing. My beef is, rather, with the 2001 editorial staff of the Tulane Environmental Law Journal. For their failure to catch this error. And I think whoever was assigned this comment to edit should have her Constitutional Law grade reduced accordingly.

Bustin' makes me feel good.

2005-10-05T10:19:00.000-07:00

Last night, I had a dream. A dream about Ray Parker, Jr. An erotic dream about Ray Parker, Jr. And this morning, when I went to get my Diesel Sweeties fix, there was a Ghostbuster's reference. Eerie.

Harriet Miers.

2005-10-03T10:12:00.000-07:00

Of course I'm a bit bothered by Bush appointing a woman who appears to be, shall we say, excessively loyal. Smacks of cronyism. But the fact that Barbara Boxer and others have been so bothered by Miers's lack of judicial experience has me puzzled. Because of the special nature of the Supreme Court, I'm not sure prior judicial experience has any bearing on whether a nominee will make for a good justice.

Also, check out my new medical column.

2005-09-27T07:37:00.000-07:00

Not The Onion is back online. And it has my newest column, which you may find amusing.

New story.

2005-09-27T07:32:00.000-07:00

Marriage of Ham Actors Attended by Ham Actors.

Palsgraf.

2005-09-26T10:07:00.000-07:00

Where can I purchase a diorama of the scene that eventually led to the landmark Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.? I need help visualizing the Italian with the fireworks being "helped" aboard the train by the railroad employee. I need to see Helen Palsgraf hit by the falling scale. And I need to see Andrews off to the side, putting his hand into the stream of causation. Goddamn it. I need a good law dork memorabilia store.

Anti-folk.

2005-09-25T10:55:00.000-07:00

I've been listening to a lot of anti-folk lately. Artists like Jeffrey Lewis, Kimya Dawson, Jason Voss, Kelly Caldwell, Langhorne Slim, and Patrick Elkins. My own explanation for what defines the "genre" is that it tends to sound like folk music performed by people who have only ever encountered folk music in an encyclopedia. The Wikipedia entry describes anti-folk as "combin[ing] the raw, abrasive, and frequently politically charged attitudes of the punk scene with the sounds of American folk tradition." I like my description better. But whatever.

Lists of artists are notoriously fuzzy around the edges. Take antifolk.net's admittedly diverse catalog. Or antifolkonline.com's inclusion of the likes of Dan Emery and Dan Bern, both of whom create, in my opinion, far too catchy songs to be so classified. And note that both lists leave out the We're Twins artists, likely because they're rooted in the more-or-less unconnected-to-New-York Ann Arbor scene. And the inclusion, on the Wikipedia list, the such popular acts as Beck, Ani DiFranco, Nellie McKay, and King Missile. King Missile! They of "Detachable Penis" fame!

Fallow field model of land conservation.

2005-09-23T11:20:00.000-07:00

I am no farmer. But it is my understanding that good, self-interested farmers let their fields lie fallow from time-to-time so as to let the land rejuvenate, replacing nutrients that the crops took from the soil. Certainly there are going to be questions about how often and long to let a field sit, whether certain nutrients will need to be replaced artificially anyway (because it takes too long to let them naturally return), whether planting a different crop will do just as well, etc. But the basic principle--that land cannot be worked continuously forever--I believe still holds true.

Which is why I am constantly surprised that it is so difficult to convince persons who use government lands (e.g. National Parks, Forests, and Grasslands)--whether they be ranchers, oil speculators, or campers--that some of the land ought to be off-limits for some activities, some of the time.

Certainly various activities have different kinds of impacts. So questions about whether to let a given parcel lie fallow, or whether to rotate in a different activity (e.g. take out the sheep, bring in the hikers; or take out the ATVs, bring in the coal miners) are important.

Also, certain activities have more of an impact than others. So it is important to determine whether to ban timber operations entirely, or to merely restrict them to certain, less destructive forms. Or whether to ban camping entirely, or to only forbid motorized vehicle camping.

And it may be that, to ensure the availability of these lands and the services they provide (e.g. clean water, important animal habitat, etc.), we may want to make some areas completely off limits. Compare to the farmer who depends upon insect pollination for his crops some of the time leaving a parcel of untouched meadow.

Anyway. I guess I'm just confused about what seems to be the block in the minds of the loggers who seem to think more is better. I guess it has something to do with the land's quasi-commons status. Hooray for private ownership of everything!

Mario and Lesley Gore.

2005-09-22T20:28:00.000-07:00

Have you ever noticed that the part of the first level music of the original NES Super Mario Bros.--the part just before it repeats--is exactly the same as a portion of Lesley Gore's classic "It's My Party"--the part right before the chorus ("Judy and Johnny just walked through the door / Like a queen with her king / Oh what a birthday surprise / Judy's wearing his ring")? Well, maybe not exactly the same. But pretty close. Eerie, no?

Fucking Patton Oswalt.

2005-09-21T11:59:00.000-07:00

Bitch kicked Monkey Throw Feces out of the top 15. And to think Roger and I almost went to see his lame-ass standup during our escapade to San Francisco over the last New Years. Well, maybe "almost" is a stretch. But it was considered. Sort of. Fucker.

Drag Show pictures.

2005-09-21T11:40:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have been waiting with baited breath to see my associates and I don the garb of the opposite gender, check out SODA's blog, Jeff's blog ("The Story of my weekend, Part I" post), and Dale's blog (the "Lucy V. Zehmer in 'Kiss of the Hobo' " post). Enjoy.

Should this be made into a film, or a short series?

2005-09-20T12:52:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush: The Biker Movie.

A suggestion for city planners.

2005-09-20T08:40:00.000-07:00

Do you have depressed neighborhoods in your urban landscape? Do you fret about how to revive these areas? Try lowering taxes! Yes, lowering taxes is the latest dance craze to sweep the nation. It cures all ills. It puts more money in the pockets of those who really need it. Never mind inflation; Alan Greenspan will save us from that. It forces bloated, inefficient government agencies to slim down. It promotes fairness. And it feels great. So lower your taxes today!

Drag Show 2005.

2005-09-18T11:56:00.000-07:00

On Friday night, SODA hosted its third annual drag show. And for the second year, I performed. Last year I was one of three backing dancers for an Elvis impersonator. This year I went solo--performing Bette Midler's "Delta Dawn." And I had a good time, and didn't fuck up too bad. Look for pictures in the near future.

Families.

2005-09-14T07:10:00.000-07:00

I have often heard pro-family wags (e.g. Rick Santorum) spew statistics about how children raised in single-parent households are more likely to live below the poverty line, fail to graduate high school, and use illegal drugs.

You don't often hear statistics about how children raised in large households (where the number of children in the household is three or more) are more likely to live below the poverty line. Or how children raised in young two-parent households (where the parents combined ages is less than 50 years) are less likely to graduate high school than in older two-parent households. Or how children raised in Christian households are more likely to use illegal drugs.

The conclusion we are supposed to take away from the first set of statistics is that the high divorce rate is damaging to children, that deadbeat dads should be vilified, and that it is good that we spend tax dollars trying to promote the "traditional" family. Using the same poor reasoning ability, the conclusion arising out of the second set of statistics is that the high birth rate is damaging to children, that young parents should be vilified, and that it would be good to spend tax dollars trying to prevent Christians from rearing children.

Of course what is really going on is that taken out of context, all of these statistics mean nothing. You'd have to know some technical things--like the sampling methods and standard deviations--to be able to say anything. And you'd have to recognize that correlation is not causation. And you'd have to remember that not all problems are worth solving.

In conclusion: fuck you, Rick Santorum.

New story (first in over a month).

2005-09-13T22:38:00.000-07:00

Netanyahu Bet on Yahoo!. Enjoy.

Rehnquist.

2005-09-03T20:57:00.000-07:00

As I was cobbling together my applications for judicial clerkships, uploading my law transcript to OSCAR, I received a call from Steve Murphy, an interesting fellow law student. He called to inform me that Chief Justice Rehnquist has died. And he called to invite me out for drinks. I declined. Then I received a call from Dale Slack, one of my good friends. He bore the same tidings. Lovely. So in response to Rehnquist's passing, I'm submitting an application to clerk for his successor instead...

Katrina.

2005-09-02T09:46:00.000-07:00

I can understand looting in the face of starvation, dehydration, etc. This is a reasonable, if not entirely legal, response to a crisis. But what could possibly justify the roving rape gangs that have come into being in the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans? Did these fuckers lose their girlfriends to the hurricane, and now the desperately need some pussy?

Kickass game.

2005-08-28T18:34:00.000-07:00

I found it on this Dutch site. It's called "Runner." And it kicks ass.

Gateway 5.

2005-08-11T16:28:00.000-07:00

Ended up selling it for $381. Not bad.

Monkey Throw Feces tops 4000 downloads!

2005-08-09T15:17:00.000-07:00

Check it out.

Gateway Quatre: the Curse of the Jade Scorpion.

2005-08-09T15:00:00.000-07:00

I'm finally unloading the piece of shit Gateway 400VTX laptop that I purchased in August 2003. [For some history, see this post. And this post. And this post.] So far, the bidding is up to $202.50. I could do worse.

Your Band Sucks and Monkey Throw Feces.

2005-07-26T12:09:00.000-07:00

One of the more amusing music critics I've stumbled upon is Dr. David Thorpe, the author of Something Awful's "Your Band Sucks" column. He has a regular feature called "The Demo Roundup." So I sent in Monkey Throw Feces' "The Meatball Song." And it is in the lastest article. We are absolutely despised by the good doctor. To the point where he actually mentions MTF in a negative light in other reviews. Enjoy.

New story.

2005-07-26T11:32:00.000-07:00

Ex-Marine's Discharge Yellow, Honorable.

Islamic extremism.

2005-07-17T08:33:00.000-07:00

Headline in my morning paper: "Blair warns of 'evil ideology' of Islamic extremism."

The one complaint I've heard most often from the hawks about the doves is that the doves waste their time trying to "understand" the enemy. "What do we care why they did it? Let's focus our efforts on stopping them from doing it again," I'll hear. Personally, I think understanding the enemy is a vital part of preventing repeats, but that opinion often falls on deaf ears.

But here's where the hypocrisy comes in. The hawks don't want you to tell them anything about the motivations of, say, the 9/11 terrorists when those motivations end up being an indictment of our side. "The 9/11 terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in retaliation for American support of oppressive, dictatorial regimes in Muslim lands" or "the 9/11 terrorists attacked the Pentagon because they were desperate in the face of extreme poverty, perpetuated by American trade practices" are rejected immediately, regardless of whether they contain any truth.

But when the indictments are of the other side, hawks are perfectly comfortable playing the armchair psychologist. "The 9/11 terrorists hijacked those planes because they were insane" or "the 9/11 terrorists aimed for the White House because a branch of Islam told them to."

If were going to completely ignore motivations, let's be consistent about it. No more references to the terrorists "hating our freedoms." No more references to their wanting to frighten us. No more references to their wanting to divide us. Certainly no more references to their religious beliefs.

If Blair would stop referring to those who perpetrated the London bombings of July 7th as "Islamic extremists," he wouldn't have to keep explaining how most Islamic people don't support terrorism. Blair could keep it simple: "there is this group of people who is responsible for the attacks. We don't know precisely why they attacked us. We don't care. We're going to catch them. That is all."

But that isn't very satisfying, is it?

Craig Richard Nelson.

2005-07-16T17:09:00.000-07:00

I posted something about Craig Richard Nelson being very Philip Seymour Hoffman in the Paper Chase on an IMDb message board back in February 2004. About a year later, some cat responded who claimed to be Craig Richard Nelson. Which exhibits the glory of the Internet. The Internet allows people to keep tabs on what others say about them. And the Internet allows people to more easily pretend to be something they are not. Doesn't really matter, I suppose; either way, I'm pleased.

Another new story.

2005-07-16T10:14:00.000-07:00

Local Woman Gets Down Off Soapbox, Builds Racer.

Viral Meningitis Got Pitt Down

2005-07-15T21:10:00.000-07:00

I was going to write a story with the above title for Yodelling Llama--the satire site, not the blog--with a bunch of Ween and Brad Pitt jokes. I was borderline inspired to do so while reading an IMDb celebrity news item about Pitt's illness. But then I realized I wouldn't be able to squeeze out much there. So I'm writing this metastory for your reading pleasure. And listening to White Pepper's wonderfully out-of-tune "Ice Castles" while I'm doing it.

New story.

2005-07-13T20:51:00.000-07:00

London Bombing Death Toll Rises to 53.

Book club.

2005-07-07T20:16:00.000-07:00

I have written before about the book club in which I am a member. And I am, with this post, writing about it again.

We're starting the next Harry Potter book just as soon as we can get copies in hand. For anyone interested, check out the book club's message board.

London calling.

2005-07-07T18:04:00.000-07:00

Today's bombings in London really bothered me. More so than the explosions that have killed thousands in Iraq since someone had the bright idea of creating another anarchist state. Why?

I can't imagine my history with Transportation Alternatives would have tipped the scales. I couldn't possibly be so shallow as to increase the impact of an event based on a mass transit system's involvement. Could I?

I suppose it could simply be a latent--or not so latent--racist tendency to value Anglo lives more than Arabs.

But I think what really bothered me about the London bombings was the indiscriminate targeting.

Let's say you've got this guy whose wife is really bugging him. It is bad when he hits her. She didn't deserve it. But how much worse is it when he goes out in the street pissed off and hits a total stranger? At least the wife was involved.

The terrorists who target police stations and military camps and ambassadors from Egypt are not exactly my favorite people. But they'll win the C. Raymond Taylor Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence compared to those guys who don't even bother to figure out who they are mad at. Or tell anyone why they're mad.

I usually respect laziness; there's a certain ethos there that occasionally brings a "Yay Plucky!" moment to fruition. But laziness and violence don't mix.

The Sun.

2005-07-06T09:55:00.000-07:00

The sun is just a nuclear weapon that hasn't finished killing us yet. The sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

New story.

2005-07-05T17:50:00.000-07:00

Law Professor Alfred Yankovic Pens Outkast Parody.

Tort reform.

2005-06-30T10:22:00.000-07:00

The problem with the British system--whereby the losing party pays the attorneys' fees of both parties--is that it discourages plaintiffs with fairly solid claims that happen to be a bit light in terms of damage awards. Which has the effect of denying access to the courts for the impoverished in many circumstances. Which is bad, methinks.

So what's the solution? The status quo arguably does not sufficiently discourage frivolous claims. So how about a compromise: what if we adopt a system where a losing plaintiff must pay his own legal bills and the legal bills of the defendants, but capped at the amount he pays to his own attorneys. So if a plaintiff pays his own attorneys $3000, the defendant pays his attorney $8000, the losing plaintiff ends up paying $6000 and the winning defendant pays $5000. It prevents monstrous defense bills from excessively impacting little-guy plaintiffs, but at the same time does discourage taking wild chances by initiating lawsuits.

Bush, Iraq, and 9/11.

2005-06-30T07:54:00.000-07:00

I think I've figured it out. No really! We're all pretty much in agreement these days that Iraq was not involved in the planes-crashing-into-big-ass-buildings event of September 11th, 2001. So some have wondered why it is that politicians keep trying to connect the 9/11 terrorist attacks with our presence in Iraq. Here's the reasoning:

There are only so many items that your average terrorist can get his hands on that will kill thousands of people. That list includes airplanes, as evidenced by 9/11. That list also includes anthrax, mustard gas, dirty bombs, and a host of other "weapons of mass destruction." So let's split the thousands-killers into two groups: everyday weapons of mass destruction (EWMDs), and special order items of mass destruction (SOWMDs). [To be fair, EWMDs are not exactly "weapons" in the normal sense of the word. But we've been fed the WMD phrase for so long that it is hard to change and not create confusion.] Terrorists can get their hands on EWMDs on their own. But terrorists need governments to get SOWMDs. Because only governments have the buying power (politically and financially) to obtain SOWMDs.

So to prevent another large scale terrorist attack using EWMDs, to prevent another 9/11, we needed to seal off the borders and tighten security at airports. Or something.

But to prevent a large scale terrorist attack similar to 9/11, but using SOWMDs, we needed to topple governments shady enough to sell SOWMDs to terrorists.

Which is not to say I think this reasoning is sound. I'm not sure how being convinced we are susceptible to large-scale EWMD attacks "fundamentally changed 'the balance of risk' in the world", and required us to rethink our approach to "rogue" states. Tighter reasoning could be found if a disgruntled Scotsman procured smallpox from a rogue state, then released it in London, killing thousands. This hypothetical would be a better impetus to go to war with Iraq, even if Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with providing the smallpox. Why? Because it would indicate our vulnerability to the actions of rogue states, and the need for better containment. Or it would provide some evidence, at any rate.

But no matter. The point is that by bringing up 9/11 during a speech on Iraq, it is not necessarily the case that Bush is ignoring the facts or trying to dupe the American public again.

Souter's comeuppance?

2005-06-29T10:06:00.000-07:00

After the Kelo v. City of New London decision--written by Justice Souter--was handed down, some guy decided to exercise his "new" right to take Souter's house away and build a hotel. Hilarious, if misguided.

Still more MGM v. Grokster.

2005-06-27T20:00:00.000-07:00

Goddamn it. I just realized this is a god-awful plurality opinion. 9-0, yes. But with Souter writing the "majority" opinion, Ginsburg (with Rehnquist and Kennedy joining) writing a concurring opinion, and Breyer (with Stevens and O'Connor joining) writing another concurring opinion. Which means that although we can be sure that Grokster and StreamCast infringed MGM et al.'s copyrights, we cannot be sure why. Which is really helpful guidance for those of us who really do want to avoid infringement, but nevertheless dig on innovation.

More MGM v. Grokster.

2005-06-27T19:50:00.000-07:00

Oh good. I had been told earlier today that the Court overturned Sony. This appears, after reading more of the case, to be false. Rather, the Court distinguished Sony by pointing out that while Sony was aware people were copying, they weren't actually marketing the Betamax as a copyright infringing device. In contrast to the actions of Grokster and StreamCast (Morpheus). Comforting result, really. Or at least not as discomforting as I had feared.

What this case really demonstrates is that copyright law in this country is fucked, and needs fixing post haste. But will those clowns in Congress figure this out? No. What a bunch of clowns.

MGM v. Grokster.

2005-06-27T19:19:00.000-07:00

I started reading the Supreme Court's decision in the MGM v. Grokster case, but had to stop myself. The "Top 40" band that Souter cites is Modest Mouse. Modest Mouse! The boys from Issaquah sure have hit the big time...

Grow a Brain.

2005-06-27T08:54:00.000-07:00

I first became aware of Grow a Brain in March of this year, when Yodelling Llama was linked therefrom. And started reading it more-or-less religiously. And posting a comment or two. After checking YL's statistics today, I realized GAB had linked to YL again. Twice. With one of the links not even remotely related to the subject of the post.

I must say, I am flattered. It is one thing to get links from friend's blogs. Or satire sites like ISNA, Mr. Satire and The Satire Awards. But to be on the radar of such a prestigious blog as GAB is something special. Thanks Hanan!

Randy's punctuation situation.

2005-06-27T08:10:00.000-07:00

After getting about halfway through my live bookmarks this morning, I came upon the latest JumboJoke: Why Law School Costs So Much. Which really isn't all that funny. But I mention it because the prior joke, Rules For Clear Writing, had a definite grammar police bent. Which I find very pleasing indeed. And within the RFCW post, several nods to proper punctuation arose.

Now I know Randy does not write these jokes. But he does edit them. And the WLSCSM post had what I thought was a glaring punctuation error. In the second-to-last paragraph, he opened an embedded quote ('I hereby give...), but never closed it. For shame.

So I looked around for a contact address with which to point out the error. And, after not finding one, I moved over to "This Is True." Where I found this tidbit where he indicated his belief that not only is the American practice of placing commas and periods within a quote, where the quote indicates the title of a publication, illogical and lazy--an opinion to which he is entitled, although one with which I disagree--but also incorrect. Or at least less correct than the British rule. I cannot imagine upon what basis one could deem a widely accepted rule of grammar incorrect, or even less correct. Perhaps someone could inform me? Is there an International Association of Grammatical Correctness, the existence of which has been hidden from me?

Blogger survey.

2005-06-26T09:10:00.000-07:00

Two more stories.

2005-06-25T08:59:00.000-07:00

Local Man Assaults and Batters Husband, Chicken and Local Cow "Mad as Hell," "Not Going to Take This Anymore".

Another new story.

2005-06-24T08:47:00.000-07:00

Another Downing Street Memo Surfaces, Blair Expresses Concerns over Live 8's Snub of Spice Girls.

New story.

2005-06-23T19:23:00.000-07:00

It's been over a month since YL had its last new story. And I'm afraid this one--called God Attempts Suicide with Occam's Razor--may not have been worth the wait. But it should still give you a chuckle. Enjoy.

Alphabet Song.

2005-06-19T12:28:00.000-07:00

So I was watching The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance yesterday, and a bunch of children were singing the alphabet song. You know, "A B C D E F G / H I J K L M N O P / Q R S / T U V / W X / Y and Z..." Only they added a few extra "ands." And they ended the song with "now I know my ABCs / tell me what you think of me."

When I learned the song, it ended with "next time won't you sing with me." So I thought that was odd. Then I remembered back to an episode of The Simpsons called "Duffless" that aired during Season 4. Homer is pulled over, after visiting the Duff brewery, for suspicion of drunk driving. And he ends the song with "won't you come and play with me." And Lou responds "we also would have accepted 'tell me what you think of me.' " Which is what the kids in Liberty Valance sang.

So after extensive research, I've discovered that the first copyrighted version of the song--in 1834, under the name "The Schoolmaster," by a gentleman named Bradlee--used the "tell me what you think of me" ending. Am I the only one that finds this version bizarre?

Yoda on drums.

2005-06-19T09:38:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across this incredibly stupid, but nevertheless ingenious, Flash toy: Yoda on drums.

Archive.org's feature film collection.

2005-06-18T21:16:00.000-07:00

I must confess that until recently, while I found the goal of archive.org laudable, I found its selection of books, films, and music simply too spotty to justify regular visits (as an alternative to the regular visits I make to the local library). I had found a few gems there in the past. Mike Doughty and Pinback concerts, for example. And classic Roger Corman and George Romero films. But on the whole, not enough to alter my lifestyle.

But, bored on a Saturday night and without much a plan, I decided to check to see what had cropped up recently. And imagine my surprise to see amazing selections like Charade, His Girl Friday, D.O.A., and Meet John Doe had somehow found their way into the public domain. Wow.

Speech.

2005-06-08T18:51:00.000-07:00

Could someone please explain to me how the criticizing foreign policy decisions of national leaders endangers troops? How objecting to racial generalizations about Arabs undermines the military? How trash-talking the President makes us less safe?

Gilmore Girls.

2005-06-03T09:10:00.000-07:00

So I've been watching episodes from the first season of "Gilmore Girls" on DVD lately. I have dubbed it "the smiliest show on television." Which is to say while watching it, you'll smile more often, for longer, and bigger than would watching another show. It is also likely in the top ten funniest (after "F Troop", "The Honeymooners," and the delightful Matt LeBlanc vehicle "Joey").

Every time I watch "Gilmore Girls," for some reason the single-episode catchphrase of a "Tiny Toons" character--whose name and species temporarily escape me--pops into my head: "Yay Plucky! He's my hero." It is an obnoxious catchphrase to be sure. And the voice was treacle. But it somehow seems appropriate.

Aeon Flux.

2005-06-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

I remember quite liking Aeon Flux when it was a series of no-dialogue MTV animated shorts. And I remember staying with it after they added voices.

Now there is a movie coming out this summer. It has a September release date and Charlize Theron, both of which are bad signs. But it also has the great Jonny Lee Miller playing Oren Goodchild. Of Hackers and Trainspotting fame. Ex-husband of tabloid tabby Angelina Jolie.

So, against my better judgment, I'm excited.

Lifers support slavery.

2005-05-23T14:23:00.000-07:00

John went to Vegas to gamble. John signed a contract at one off-the-Strip casino whereby if he rolled a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, he would receive $10,000, but if he rolled a 1, he would be compelled to work for the casino doing odd jobs for nine months, receiving only food and shelter in return. In the law we have a word for such a contract: void.

The Thirteenth Amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

One can contract for employment; one cannot contract for employment without the ability to unilaterally terminate.

If John rolled a 1, then started working for the casino, then, after two months, decided to leave, the casino would be liable for unjust imprisonment if it were to prevent his doing so. Furthermore, the casino would not be able to seek damages from John for the seven months he failed to work. And the U.S., Nevada, and Las Vegas governments would all be specifically precluded by the Thirteenth Amendment from helping the casino realize its value lost, or preventing John from realizing his freedom.

If instead of a casino, John formed the above-described contract with Billy the Imbecile. Now we have two grounds to void the contract: both the Thirteenth Amendment and the incapacity of one of the contracting parties.

If John formed the above-described contract with Billy the Imbecile, and when John decided to leave after two months, Billy tried to stop him using physical force, John would be within his rights to retaliate with force, even deadly force, to secure his freedom.

If instead of Billy using physical force to stop John, he simply threatened force, John would still be within his rights to retaliate.

If instead of Billy threatening or using physical force to stop John, he simply stands in front of the only exit, John is legally permitted to shove Billy out of the way (assuming asking Billy to move is ineffective).

Now consider the following: John and Billy form the above-described contract. John loses by rolling a 1. John works for two months as Billy's valet. John decides he wants out. Billy, without threats or use of physical force, stands in front of the only door and refuses to budge. The floor in the foyer has been removed while it is being repaired, so there is a twenty foot drop on either side of the temporary bridge that leads from the door into the house. John can either 1) wait until Billy decides to move, or 2) shove Billy out of the way. Should John be permitted to shove Billy out of the way, knowing that doing so will result in Billy falling to his death? I contend the answer is obvious: yes. One person's right to be free from slavery trumps another's right to be alive. And I don't think John must wait until his life is in danger.

What's the point of all this? The pro-lifers have two hurdles to overcome in every case where they seek to block an abortion:

showing that a particular mass of pre-birth tissue is a rights-bearing individual, and
showing that a pregnant woman's right to be free from slavery under the circumstances is trumped by the aforementioned pre-birth tissue's right to be alive.

Yes, I know that the act of coitus differs from the act of signing a contract. If anything, though, I would think it cuts against the lifers. At most you have an implied contract between the fetus and pregnant woman based upon her consent to receive a third party's ejaculate.

Yes, I know a fetus differs from Billy the Imbecile in many respects. But again, I would suggest this cuts against the lifers. While there is the possibility of talking Billy away from the door, there is little chance of talking the fetus out of the womb prematurely.

Yes, I know feeding and sheltering a fetus differs from acting as Billy's valet. But again, I would suggest this cuts against the lifers. I would expect the danger to the pregnant woman's health, the restrictions on her ability to enjoy life, and the repulsive closeness of the slaveowner-fetus's demands may far exceed any duties demanded of a valet. And besides, do we really want to get into the actual demands made by the slaveowner? Does slavery become okay simply because the slaveowner only requires his slaves to work eight hour days, feeds them well, and never abuses them?

Perhaps one could argue John doesn't have the right to shove Billy away from the door, and that John's moral and legal duty is to die of dehydration, or at least wait until dehydration is imminent before shoving Billy. Or perhaps one could argue if John knew for sure that Billy would move in seven months, he ought to wait; and it becomes permissible to shove Billy only if John does not know for how long Billy intends to remain. But these seem to me to be too fine hairs to be good for splitting.

In conclusion: pro-lifers support slavery insofar as they wish to deny a pregnant woman the right to free herself from a fetus who demands her employment. As with every employment relationship in modernity, both parties must be legally capable of unilaterally terminating the relationship; pregnancy without the abortion choice removes that possibility.

Support the abortion option by placing a sticker on your car or forehead.

Monkey Throw Feces.

2005-05-22T11:24:00.000-07:00

I always assumed that this thing would taper off after a short while. But the band is working on some new material right now. And I just checked Yodelling Llama's statistics, and apparently we've had 30 downloads of "The Meatball Song" in May so far, with 152 since it was posted. [I'd say more about the other songs, but 1 & 1 only keeps track of the 99 most popular files, and the bottom of the list for the year is "There You Go Again (Sucking On My Cock)" with 104 downloads, year-to-date.] That's not including MTF's Download.com numbers (95 last week, 3432 total) and MySpace numbers (38 total plays). Or sales of "The Self-Titled Extended Play" (1). These numbers are large enough to suggest that I'm not the only one listening to this garbage. Wow.

Filibuster.

2005-05-22T10:15:00.000-07:00

In my Business Associations class (often called, by many schools, "Corporations"; as LLPs, LLCs, and other registered organizations found their genesis so recently that there has yet to be developed much interesting caselaw) we studied a case involving a corporation created by three families. Family #1 had a 40% stake; family #2 had a 40% stake; and family #3 had a 20% stake. The corporation employed a number of individuals from each family; family #1, especially, saw the corporation as a guaranteed place of employment. To that end, family #1 insisted that a clause appear in the articles of incorporation requiring at 2/3 majority by the board of directors in order to fire an employee who was a member of any of the three families. [Note: the articles also provided that the proportional representation of the stock of the families be reflected in the proportions of the directors; so family #1 and #2 each had 4 directors and family #3 had 2.] Which meant that if a member of family #2 was fucking up royally, he could be fired only if one of the four directors from family #2 so found.

Or did it? The problem was that as a default, articles of incorporation can be amended with a simple majority by the board. So instead of needing 7 votes (2/3+) to oust someone, one only needs the 6 votes (1/2+) to change the articles to require a mere simple majority, then 6 votes to oust.

What's the lesson here? Have someone who knows what she's doing write your articles of incorporation. Also, make sure that your founding document does not permit procedural end-runs.

The Senate would have been better had it learned this lesson. The current debate over the filibuster is this:

1) The Senate rules allow an individual to hold up a vote indefinitely, but he can be prevented from doing so with a 60% supermajority.
2) The Senate rules allow changing of the Senate rules with a 50% majority.

So what the Republicans can do is change the filibuster rule out of existence. If someone who had known what she was doing had written the Senate rules to be a coherent whole, one would need a 60% supermajority to change the filibuster rules. That no one seems to have noticed the discrepancy until now is evidence that the Senate rules were authored by a bunch of goddamn morons who should all be fired and sued for malpractice.

Pink Triangle.

2005-05-21T16:56:00.000-07:00

There's a line in Weezer's "Pink Triangle" that goes "might have smoked a few in my time / never thought it was a crime." Most people I've talked to assume he is referring to marijuana.

But given the subject matter of the song, my theory is that Rivers is referring to cock. He's admitting to having had homosexual encounters in the past as a way of convincing a lesbian to "be a little straight."

Another new story.

2005-05-20T17:47:00.000-07:00

Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff Dons Shirt.

New story.

2005-05-19T12:31:00.000-07:00

Sith Opens To Rave Reviews, Lackluster Box Office.

Green Day and Semisonic.

2005-05-18T10:48:00.000-07:00

For some reason my copy of iTunes (set on shuffle) decided to play "Closing Time" and "When I Come Around," one right after the other. As a result, I came to the conclusion that these two songs are actually the same song. So I plan, as one of my summer projects, to strip the vocals from one and add it to the other, and vice versa. A "mash-up," if you will. Only, because I'm not terribly skilled when it comes to audio editing (see MTF's album, The Self-Titled Extended Play for examples), it will end up sounding god-awful. Look for it in a few weeks.

Joke.

2005-05-16T22:08:00.000-07:00

Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. After all, if you don’t break fast, you’ll end up wrapped around a tree.

Evolution and theory.

2005-05-15T11:31:00.000-07:00

Several weeks ago I learned that one of my fellow law students misunderstood what the term "theory" means in science by suggesting, during a discussion of the Establishment Clause in my First Amendment class, that "intelligent design" ought to be taught alongside evolution. Before that I had assumed that the only people who believed this hogwash were hucksters and the unschooled. And while perhaps a solid backing in biology, or even science generally, is not necessarily found in law students, they do tend to be at least modestly educated.

So, let me see if I can put this in terms lawyers can understand. A "theory," as the term is used in science, is not synonymous with "speculation" or "conjecture." Rather, a "theory" is well-supported by empirical evidence, fits with prior theories, and is the best (usually simplest) explanation that fits with the evidence. Talk of a theory being "unproven" is misleading. Theories, because they are only models to account for the observed evidence, cannot be proven. At least not in the "beyond all doubt" sense that scientists employ.

Lawyers also talk about "proof." But we mean "proven beyond reasonable doubt," "proven by clear and convincing evidence," or "proven by a preponderance of the evidence." All of which are substantially less rigorous standards than science demands.

Perhaps the clearest (if not most accurate) way to put this is to say that a scientific hypothesis must satisfy a preponderance standard. And a theory must satisfy a reasonable doubt standard.

Just remember that to be called a "theory" there can be no conclusive contrary evidence, there must be quite a bit of conclusive supporting evidence, and the model must be the best explanation out there.

And evolution is a theory in this sense.

New story.

2005-05-06T11:21:00.000-07:00

Ben Folds Five Times.

Monkey Throw Feces on Myspace.

2005-05-03T17:42:00.000-07:00

I fell into the Myspace trap last Fall. As did my brother. For those of you who don't know, my brother and I have this ongoing project called Monkey Throw Feces. I've had up many of our songs on Yodelling Llama and on Download.com for a while now. I decided, after seeing how many major recording artists (e.g. Weezer, Nine Inch Nails, and Sleater-Kinney) have posted something or other to Myspace, that Monkey Throw Feces needs a presence there as well. So be sure to check out Monkey Throw Feces on Myspace. Because more of the same is still more.

Skatallica.

2005-04-30T18:57:00.000-07:00

After getting Verve Pipe's "Freshman" and Train's "Drops of Jupiter" stuck in my head over the past two days, I decided I needed to bleed out the rash of loops that has plagued me lately. And the best way I know of to do that is to listen to Skatallica's debut, self-titled album.

Skatallica was not, as the name might suggest, a cover band that uses horns and downbeat to mutate (or mutilate) Metallica. Although Metallica is, to the best of my knowledge, from where Skatallica's name originated.

Don't get me wrong: Skatallica was a ska band, based out of Flemington, New Jersey and the surrounding municipalities that comprised the Hunterdon Central Regional High School district. The players numbered, I believe, seven. And were students at the aforementioned high school. They had several songs and played a few shows at a local "restaurant" called King Buffet. I attended most.

Skatallica cut one album. It was short (about 20 minutes) and had, roughly, eight songs. Including an authorized cover of Van Morrison's "Brown-Eyed Girl." And one about an Italian ice franchise setting up shop in town. It was well made, given its humble origins.

The thing is...this album has some very catchy tunes, after a fashion. Catchy enough to drown out other catchy songs that might dwell on your cerebral cortex for days. But not so catchy as to actually become lodged there themselves. Useful.

I searched for any reference to Skatallica elsewhere on the Internet, but could not find a trace that the band ever existed. Which means, well-meaning though I am, I cannot point you toward a purveyor of goods that would have a copy of the above-referenced album for sale. I suppose I could post the songs I have--I do have a copy of the album from those heady days before the turn of the millennium when ska was king--but I would imagine some kind of copyright infringement lawsuit would result. Not from the band members, mind you. They would almost certainly be more pleased at seeing their name in "print" than they would be litigious. Rather, I suspect Van Morrison's high-priced attorneys would haul me into court before I could hit "Publish Post." Maybe if you ask me nicely, I'll send you a taste...

Two new stories.

2005-04-30T17:22:00.000-07:00

US Treasury To Remove "In God We Trust" from Currency, Replace with "In Blank We Trust"

and

English Professor Gives Up, Admits "They" Acceptable Third-Person Singular Pronoun.

Still more songs in my head.

2005-04-26T09:46:00.000-07:00

"Honey Pie," from The White Album.

"Dope Nose," from Maladroit.

New story.

2005-04-25T13:30:00.000-07:00

Baskin Dunkin Wins Togo Presidency.

Gay marriage.

2005-04-24T17:10:00.000-07:00

The debate over gay marriage is, at its core, a debate over the purpose of marriage. If you find marriage as a social construct designed to further the breeding process, of course you'll object to gay marriage. And sterile marriage. And marriage involving persons who were exposed to substances that may reasonably lead to birth defects. And post-menopausal marriage. Sure, I'm all for clarifying that "marriage" means "breeding factory." That is, I'm all for stripping my grandparents of their half-century old marriage license.

Of course, if you're all for classifying "marriage" as "love factory," I'm not sure I see what the problem with two guys getting hitched is...