Muttroxia

Having been raised properly, I am a Patriots fan. These days, that’s great, it’s virtually impossible to be trashtalked, you can make continual snarky comments and there is no reply. They are always on TV, which is a nice change when you’re stuck in Georgia.

But even a homer like myself is annoyed by the idiotic coverage. The rule seems to be that since the Patriots are such a great team, anything they do, particularly Belichick or Brady, must be amazing. This is of course ridiculous.

From yesterday’s disaster game against the Panthers, “..Brady steps back. No pash rush at all. Look how calmly he just stands there!” Um — if there’s no pash rush, what’s so hard about just standing there?

From the opener aginst the Raiders (paraphased), “For anyone else, that would be have been a very bad decision. But with Belichick, you know it’s part of a bigger plan.” Well, no you don’t. Belichick makes plenty of mistakes.

Belichick has one great skill that gives him the edge. He is an analytical thinker who challenges the conventional wisdom. That doesn’t sound like much, but when applied right, it’s all you need. He never overpays for players, he is able to find good players that no one else valued, he maximizes the player skill for the money. In today’s world of salary cap parity, that is an enormous advantage. During a game, he doesn’t accept the conventional wisdom about when to onside kick, when to go for it on fourth down, not to repeat the same play twice, etc.

My prediction: Over the next 5 years, you will see a new crop of coaches that understand how to think this way. The Patriot’s edge will slowly dilute, because other teams will be doing the same things they are.

The latest member of the Muttrox clan, Edward Robert, was born Saturday, Sept 17, at 10:00 am. Mom and baby are healthy and recovering from their respective ordeals.

You wouldn’t think that’s a dilemna, but if you’re a political party, it is. Do you put it all in close races (the conventional wisdom), or spread it around a bit more? This article is the kind of analysis I love, using the power of mathematics, statistics, and clear thinking to reach a seemingly obvious conclusion. The gist is that you get diminishing returns from the big money thrown at close races. That money has more of an effect in races where your candidate is facing long odds. In any race, that seems foolish, but taken as a whole, some of those long odds will convert.

I would also note that part of the GOP strategy has been to attack all the Democratic strongholds. They’ve made huge inroads into Labor, the African-American block, the poor, Catholics (despite the Democrats running a Catholic candidate!), etc. Although these are all still majority blue, they are no longer overwhelming, and the Democrats have had to spend much time defending their home turf. Spending money in places where the GOP doesn’t expect to have to fight a battle can have a disproportionate outcome, as they have to spend resources defending rather than attacking.

Peter Daou has a good overview about the lenses used by the right and left.

The unbridgeable divide between the left and right’s approach to Iraq and the WoT is, among other things, a disagreement over the value of moral and material strength, with the left placing a premium on the former and the right on the latter. The right (broadly speaking) can’t fathom why the left is driven into fits of rage over every Abu Ghraib, every Gitmo, every secret rendition, every breach of civil liberties, every shifting rationale for war, every soldier and civilian killed in that war, every Bush platitude in support of it, every attempt to squelch dissent. They see the left’s protestations as appeasement of a ruthless enemy. For the left (broadly speaking), America’s moral strength is of paramount importance; without it, all the brute force in the world won’t keep us safe, defeat our enemies, and preserve our role as the world’s moral leader…

For the less gullible among us, the administration’s alarmist rhetoric in 2002 was a grim farce, and the unfolding of the nightmare we see today was a foregone conclusion. Saddam was no greater or immediate a threat – and arguably a lesser one – than North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. Hindsight has proven these war critics correct. Few dispute that the threat from Saddam was over-stated – to put it mildly. And evidence continues to mount that the invasion was a fait accompli by 2002 if not 2001. Calling for an immediate pullout from Iraq has nothing to do with capitulation and everything to do with righting a moral wrong and undoing the damage done to America’s moral standing.

Definitely worth reading in full no matter which side you are on.

No firm opinions from me. Barron’s has a good article from two short hedge fund managers (go here and search for “Hook”). Quote: He’s run out of money but doesn’t yet know it.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Bill Moyer, 73, wears a “Bullshit Protector” flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac)

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.

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.