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."