Operation Yellow Elephant: Get Real

It’s all fun calling out chickenhawks out on their hypocrisy, but c’mon. This is just ridiculous. If you want good humor, check out The Poorman.

For a “reasonable” line on chickenhawk, click to Wolcott.

Those who wrestled with the decision to go to war I’m not inclined to call chickenhawks. A pro-war civilian does not automatically a chickenhawk make.

For me, the working definition of a chickenhawk is–a chickenhawk is a cheerleader. A cheerleader for war. And not necessarily just the war in Iraq, or regional war in the Mideast, but war in general. A chickenhawk glorifies war as an enterprise, enjoying the heroics inside his or her head, mocking those less enthusiastic military aggression as pacifists, appeasers (Michael Ledeen’s pet word), even traitors. Who patronize anyone with qualms, from the Quakers to the Chuck Hagel, with edgy impatience and disdain. Who treat the destruction of human life as a stupendous flourish as long as it’s the US doing the destroying–who, that is, propose “creative destruction” on a geopolitical scale as an instrument of transformation. Not to mention an opportunity to teach those desert folks in sandals a lesson upside the head.

How to be in the ruling elite

I was in court the other day, fighting a BS traffic ticket. There were about sixty of us. Four of us wore suits. Two lawyers, one of the lawyer’s clients, and myself. Everyone else was dressed from casual khakis down to cutoffs, oversize NFL shirts, and do-rags. I dress nice for court, not only because I believe it gives me a better chance of winning, but because the institution deserves some respect.

My case was dismissed instantly (the other party didn’t show up), and I walked back out. As I did, the man who had sat behind me and borrowed my pen (about 75% of the people there did not have pens) asked if he could speak to me outside. Sure, no problem. When we were outside, he turned to me, and nervously began to ask, “Um… how much would you charge for a case where –“. I cut him off and explained I wasn’t a lawyer, just dressed nicely for court. He looked properly mortified and backed away.

Isn’t it amazing that just by wearing a suit to a court date, people will think you’re a lawyer?

Under Construction

You may notice some changes to the look and feel of this site as Muttroxia evolves. I’ve gotten around to looking at the software that underlies this system, and figured out how to make edits. (Three cheers for open source! Everything modular and editable, even with handy documentation!) I like to do my coding live, and incrementally. So there won’t be an abrubt transistion from one look to another, but you may see various elements changing as you go along. For example, right now I’ve changed the main font, and made some small edits to the header and footer sections.

Anyone reading my rants knows that user interface is a big issue with me, so you can bet whatever we end up with will be, if nothing else, easy to read.

INXS: Rock Star

Time for a politics break. Let’s talk about the important issues of the day. Like INXS: Rock Star. I like this show. Infinitely more than American Idol. Rock n Roll is still what I love, it’s a pleasure to see people who are talented in my genre compete. My goodness, some of the contestants even play instruments! Heresy!

Still — as my wife points out, it’s not as if the American Idol contestants aren’t talented. They are, enormously so. But it’s a different kind of talent. It’s mostly technical. There’s nothing artistic, nothing personal about it. The competitors in INXS: Rock Star may have technical chops, but they would quickly be eliminated unless they bring something of themselves to it, something that is unique to themselves. In summary, fuck American Idol.

Unfortunately for them, the members of INXS don’t realize that they are the ones auditioning. This is a rock band who hasn’t made an impact in the last 15 years. And the whole genre of rock and roll is, as much as I hate to say it, not where the action is these days. INXS has been given a great chance. They are in front of the entire nation three days a week, in a forum where they can show their own personality, and sell themselves to potential fans.. What they’ve shown is they are boring as hell. You have to wonder. They look like they would rather be curled up at home with a good book and a glass of port. And because they don’t actually lower themselves by performing, we don’t even get to see to their musical chops, which are presumably great since they were at the top for a long time. I hope their new singer is truly fantastic, because he or she is the only way they will draw fans under 30.

Activist Judges

A fascinating look at what goes into a Supreme Court decision, from Justice Stevens.

In one, the eminent domain case that became the term’s most controversial decision, he said that his majority opinion that upheld the government’s “taking” of private homes for a commercial development in New London, Conn., brought about a result “entirely divorced from my judgment concerning the wisdom of the program” that was under constitutional attack.

His own view, Justice Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association, was that “the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials.” But he said that the planned development fit the definition of “public use” that, in his view, the Constitution permitted for the exercise of eminent domain.

Justice Stevens said he also regretted having to rule in favor of the federal government’s ability to enforce its narcotics laws and thus trump California’s medical marijuana initiative. “I have no hesitation in telling you that I agree with the policy choice made by the millions of California voters,” he said. But given the broader stakes for the power of Congress to regulate commerce, he added, “our duty to uphold the application of the federal statute was pellucidly clear.”

First of all, what does ‘pellucidly clear’ mean? I can’t be the only one who has never heard the word in my entire life. Anyhow, it shows that judges are by and large the exact opposite of activist. An activist judge would do what they thought is right instead of doing what the law compelled them to do.

This brings to mind the famous activist judges of Massachusetts, who supposedly legalized gay marriage. This is simply untrue. “We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts constitution,” Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the 4-3 decision. I don’t see anything in there about legalizing about gay marriage, it’s about giving the same right to those who do. And it’s based from the text of the constitution, not made up out of thin air.

As many have documented, in today’s current environment, an activist judge is one you disagree with.

Giving conservatism a bad name

The New York Times reports that some of the states (mostly northeast) are voluntarily imposing pollution standards on themselves, since the federal government has done such a terrible job at it.

First the good news: They are using a market model of emissions trading. This is a fantastic idea, and the one good part of Bush’s environmental legislation. The biggest problem with environmental issues is that they are externalities. There is no incentive structure around them, it is almost always to your economic benefit to pollute as much as possible. Laws are great, and social pressure is great, but they have a way of bending before the power of the almighty dollar. Trading emissions bring the externalites into the market system, and all the great things that implies. Similar to Clinton’s attempted BTU tax, it penalizes and rewards the right parties.

Trading emissions is great at aligning polluters with their degree of pollution. But where do you set the overall cap? How do you deal with grandfathering in old systems? How do you deal with different pollutants? How do you deal with all the little niggling things that the real world throws in the way of a great theory? If you’re the current administration, you flip the finger to the public. Bush’s loyalty to the corporate world has consistently outweighed any bursts of intelligent policy, regardless of whether that policy speaks perfectly to the economic conservatism he loves to speak of. It’s a shame that the few good policies this administration is behind seem to fall victim to their brand of politics-as-usual.

*************
On a semi-related topic, get a load of the sourcing in this paragraph.

Preliminary details of the region’s emission reduction goals were included in a confidential memo circulated among officials of all nine states that was given to The New York Times by a person who supports the enactment of national legislation to control emissions, but who did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to have the memo.

The NYT, as it should be, is struggling with how to source material that comes from anonymous sources. After their many journalistic snafus, it’s a welcome change. It reads very oddly, but it does give you a sense of potential biases and motivations in getting the information.

No Smoking at The Vortex

The Nanny state strikes again. We’re big fans of The Vortex here at Muttroxia. Fairly standard bar & grill food, in a nice atmosphere. The Vortex is one of those places that makes it clear the customer is not always right. The menu is great fun to read. Take a flip through their No Idiots Policy. One piece of it is out of date, the smoking policy. It currently reads, “The Vortex is proud to accommodate non-smokers and smokers alike, and we will continue to do so as long as this choice is not taken away from small business owners by anti-smoking zealots and evil government bureaucrats.”

Well, that choice got taken away. The new policy in that neck of the woods is that no one under 21 can be exposed to smoke. The Vortex management believes strongly in personal choice and individual responsibility. So they made the choice to no longer allow anyone under 21. There is a bouncer at the door at all times to check IDs. This is a shame. As the Vortex managment says,

VORTEX TO REMAIN SMOKER-FRIENDLY
At The Vortex Bar & Grill we are staunch supporters of individual liberty and freedom of choice. But unfortunately the State of Georgia is not. Under the rules of the new “Georgia Smokefree Air Act of 2005,” we are legally prohibited from offering smoking as an option for our customers unless we restrict minors from our premises.
We are saddened that the State government is forcing us to limit the choices we offer our clientele, but since The Vortex was established as a social gathering place for adults, we will continue to offer the option of smoking to our patrons.

Therefore, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2005 you must be 21 years old to enter The Vortex.

We are deeply concerned that more citizens do not understand the real danger in government-sponsored Smoking Bans and other types of coercive legislation that violate individual choice and private property rights. Yes, tyranny is alive and well and can often be found hiding behind the label of “Public Safety.”

I couldn’t have said it better. It’s exactly because of idiocy like this that so many people identify themselves as libertarians, the normal liberal vs. conservative lines aren’t adequate to express how many people are appalled at their government intruding in their lives like this.

(It’s all the more ironic, because the evidence that is used to go crazy about the barest possibility of second-hand smoke is extremely suspect. Take a flip through, and watch the video here. The gist is that all sources trace themselves back to one EPA study, which was itself overturned in court because the science was so poorly done.)

I don’t smoke. Disgusting habit, and obviously not very smart health-wise. But hey, if you want to do it, go ahead. I’ll even have a meal with you. America, get over it.