The Foreign Minister has cast aspersions on my honor. Don‚ÄövÑv¥t think I‚ÄövÑv¥m not keeping track, my friend. When the great cabbage shortage arrives, guess who won‚ÄövÑv¥t be sharing‚ÄövѬ

To save our dear reader(s?) from having to trackback to the archives, the calumny is reprinted here:

If the M of A could have read these (his own!) post 10 years ago when we were in college together he would not believe this stuff came from his own pen! Egad! You are turning in to quite the conservative republican friend. The last hurdle is coming to the realization that your neighbors don‚ÄövÑv¥t need to be taxed heavily and your are IN!

I‚ÄövÑv¥m not sure how much I have actually changed since college. Are you referring to my newfound appreciation of the rifle as a farm tool? If you will recall, even when baited by your friends who were, let‚ÄövÑv¥s be honest, not just gun nuts but raving weaponry lunatics, I never argued for a blanket ban on firearms. I simply wanted to move the debate to a discussion of how to reasonably control the negative effects of gun ownership (accidents, drive-by-shootings, etc.) and away from the fallacious argument that the ‚ÄövÑv Well-regulated‚ÄövÑvp line in the Second Amendment doesn‚ÄövÑv¥t exist.

Perhaps you are referring to my support of a strong foreign policy. I‚ÄövÑv¥m not sure if foreign policy can be characterized as conservatism; many conservatives like the ML‚ÄövÑv¥s buddy Buchanan are rank isolationists.

Was it my condemnation of government subsidies in agriculture? I am not opposed to all subsidies ‚ÄövÑv¨ I believe the government should interfere in the economy when it is beneficial to the public weal. Agricultural subsidies benefit neither the public nor family farms. Instead, they are a form of corporate welfare. I do differ from traditional liberals in that government interference is not a universal solution. Of course, conservatives are often hostile to government intervention of any sort. I‚ÄövÑv¥m in the middle ground. The ML has pointed out, and upon reflection I agree, that I have become increasing skeptical of the effectiveness of individual public programs.

And, good Lord, I‚ÄövÑv¥m certainly no conservative Republican on social issues. My reading of the Bible doesn‚ÄövÑv¥t lead me to the conclusion that abortion is murder. I don‚ÄövÑv¥t want some gummint bue-ro-cat writin‚ÄövÑv¥ no prayers for my daughter. I think evolution ought to be taught in schools without the pseudo-‚ÄövÑv science‚ÄövÑvp of creationism. I want gays to have the same rights as the rest of us. I support (with some caveats) (properly applied) affirmative action (in the short term). I think what consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody‚ÄövÑv¥s business.

And taxes. I support progressive taxation. Not only do the rich benefit disproportionately from the stable society produced by government action, they have a higher level of post-maintenance income. We are on the left, not the right of the Laffer curve. Furthermore, the rich actually benefit from paying taxes. Would you rather be a taxed rich person in America or an untaxed rich person in the Philippines? I don‚ÄövÑv¥t support a nanny state for non-workers, but the rich do benefit from having an educated work force and a prosperous consumer base that is only possible if the greatest number of people have a place in society.

And sure, I criticize the snot out of the Democratic Party. They deserve it. Many of my colleagues on the left are just plain ignorant and misguided. Others may have less sanguine intentions. I was happy to see the Maximum Leader criticize his party. If party members don‚ÄövÑv¥t work for change from within, then both parties will be adrift.

Repeat after me: Effective government action can improve the lives of the people. Taxes that improve the nation are good investments for everyone. Some foreign dictators need to be dead. There. Feel better? Join the progressives, my friend.

Smallholder

Don Villain, I am honored and grateful that you have invited me to your blog on the wedding day of your sister. And may your third child be a masculine child.

Richard Cohen has an opinion piece in yesterday‚ÄövÑv¥s Post that bears on the discussion I was having with the Foreign Minister. Cohen, a professional wordsmith, captures my feelings more eloquently than I could. I don‚ÄövÑv¥t look down on anyone who sought to avoid service in the war (though I think going to Canada rather than jail was selfish rather than moral), but I do object to Bush‚ÄövÑv¥s mischaracterization of that service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27178-2004Feb9.html

From Guardsman . . .
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 10, 2004; Page A23
During the Vietnam War, I was what filmmaker Michael Moore would call a “deserter.” Along with President Bush and countless other young men, I joined the National Guard, did my six months of active duty (basic training, etc.) and then returned to my home unit, where I eventually dropped from sight. In the end, just like President Bush, I got an honorable discharge. But unlike President Bush, I have just told the truth about my service. He hasn’t.
At least I don’t think so. Nothing about Bush during that period — not his drinking, not his partying — suggests that he was a consistently conscientious member of the Texas or Alabama Air National Guard. As it happens, there are no records to show that Bush reported for duty during the summer and fall of 1972. Nonetheless, Bush insists he was where he was supposed to be — “Otherwise I wouldn’t have been honorably discharged,” Bush told Tim Russert. Please, sir, don’t make me laugh.
It is sort of amazing that every four or eight years, Vietnam — that long-ago war — rears up from seemingly nowhere and comes to figure in the national political debate. In 1988 Dan Quayle had to answer for his National Guard service. In 1992 Bill Clinton had to grapple with the question of how he avoided the Vietnam-era draft. Now George Bush, who faced this question the last time out, has to face it again. The reason is that this time he is likely to compete against a genuine war hero. John Kerry did not duck the war.
But George Bush did. He did so by joining the National Guard. Bush now wants to drape the Vietnam-era Guard with the bloodied flag of today’s Iraq-serving Guard — “I wouldn’t denigrate service to the Guard,” Bush warned during his interview with Russert — but the fact remained that back then the Guard was where you went if you did not want to fight. That was the case with me. I opposed the war in Vietnam and had no desire to fight it. Bush, on the other hand, says he supported the war — as long, it seems, as someone else fought it.
It hardly matters what Bush did or did not do back in 1972. He is not the man now he was then — that by his own admission. In the same way, it did not matter that Clinton ducked the draft, because, really, just about everyone I knew at the time was doing something similar. All that really matters is how one accounts for what one did. Do you tell the truth (which Clinton did not)? Or do you do what I think Bush has been doing, which is making his National Guard service into something it was not? In his case, it was a rich kid’s way around the draft.
In my case, it was something similar — although (darn!) I was not rich. I was, though, lucky enough to get into a National Guard unit in the nick of time, about a day before I was drafted. I did my basic and advanced training (combat engineer) and returned to my unit. I was supposed to attend weekly drills and summer camp, but I found them inconvenient. I “moved” to California and then “moved” back to New York, establishing a confusing paper trail that led, really, nowhere. For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed.
In the end, I wound up in the Army Reserve. I was assigned to units for which I had no training — tank repairman, for instance. In some units, we sat around with nothing to do and in one we took turns delivering antiwar lectures. The National Guard and the Reserves were something of a joke. Everyone knew it. Books have been written about it. Maybe things changed dramatically by 1972, two years after I got my discharge, but I kind of doubt it.
I have no shame about my service, but I know it for what it was — hardly the Charge of the Light Brigade. When Bush attempts to drape the flag of today’s Guard over the one he was in so long ago, when he warns his critics to remember that “there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq,” then he is doing now what he was doing then: hiding behind the ones who were really doing the fighting. It’s about time he grew up.

Reread the third to last paragraph. In today‚ÄövÑv¥s post, the White House is arguing that pay records PROVE that Bush showed up for drills. Hmmm. Cohen got paid too.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been sitting in the Villainschloss in a foul mood. Foul because he is spending lots of time thinking about the profligate spending of the Republican Congress and President Bush. The WSJ’s Opinion Journal had two really fine articles on this subject recently. One on February 9th, and one on the 10th. (You might have to become a registered user to view these links. It is free…)

Recently your Maximum Leader, in private conversation with one of his ministers indicated that he didn’t think the current Republicans in Congress were as corrupt as the Democrats of the early to mid-1980’s. Your Maximum Leader continues to hold that view. But, it is getting harder and harder. It is pretty bad when the generally conservative Opinion Journal runs a piece by David Frum that starts:

One way you can tell that Republicans have become the dominant political party in Washington is to watch them cash in.

The Frum piece continues to describe how Republican Billy Tauzin is stepping down from his powerful position on the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House to take a job lobbying for the pharmaceutical industry for $2.5 million per annum. Not a bad golden parachute. Now, having lived a significant portion of his life in and around Washington DC, your Maximum Leader can assure you that this type of move is not at all unusual. But to quote Frum’s column:

Republicans should view such tactics and the bidding war for Mr. Tauzin on K Street as warning signs of ideological dry rot. No matter how well gerrymandered their districts, the GOP majority could be in jeopardy if it develops the same reputation for ruthlessness and selfishness that burdened the Democrats in the early 1990s.

Indeed. The Republican Congress is slipping (not so slowly) into the becoming a big spending party who looks after their own self-interest (ie: re-election). Look at these charts supplied by the Cato Institute concerning spending under the Republican Congress. Take the one entitled “Annual Increases in Federal Outlays.” (I’d link directly but can’t seem to capture the individual graph URLs.) Who knew that 1993 was such a good year in terms of small increases in Federal Outlays? But look at that huge jump from 2001 to 2002? Yikes! And it is projected to go down in 2004/2005? Really. From what crackpipe are the good analysts at Cato smoking (because your Maximum Leader will mass-produce them in the MWO)? With the recent announcement that the new Medicare Drug benefit will cost significantly more than projected (big surprise there) how can they say that? It doesn’t stand up to the most minute application of logic.

The Republicans in Congress it seems are not just profligate spenders, but are becoming the strong-arm muscle men like Jim Wright’s and Tip O’Neil’s Democrats. To pick up from the Frum piece again:

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who was one of only 25 GOP House members to vote against the Medicare bill, says Democratic colleagues have told him that the two major reasons they lost control of the House to the GOP in 1994 were the reckless liberalism of the Clinton administration during its first two years and “the Jim Wright and House Bank scandals that convinced people that Democrats were looking out for themselves first. For our own good, I hope we don’t fall into that trap.”

He and other members say Mr. Tauzin’s jackpot couldn’t have come at a worse time. Last week, the House Ethics Comittee revealed that for the past two months it has been investigating an allegation by Rep. Nick Smith, a Michigan Republican, that party leaders offered him a bribe in exchange for his vote on the Medicare bill. Mr. Smith voted against the bill and later said unnamed members of his party had said they’d contribute $100,000 to his son’s congressional campaign if he had voted in favor. If not, Mr. Smith said, they told him they’d see that the younger Mr. Smith lost his race. Mr. Smith later recanted, saying his claim of bribery was “technically inaccurate” and has since refused to discuss the matter further.

But other GOP members stood by their stories of strong-arm tactics. South Carolina’s Rep. Jim DeMint said contributors threatened to withhold donations for his upcoming Senate race unless he voted for the Medicare bill, while Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri said a state legislator threatened to run against him. Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida was told his path towards a party leadership position would be blocked if he voted against the bill.

Bribery. Strong-arm tactics. Looking out for themselves first. Humm… Your Maximum Leader is beginning to think that the spirit of Tip O’Neil moves through the Republican caucus.

Now don’t get your Maximum Leader wrong. As he said, he is familiar with how politics are played. But it is not looking good. There is always a give and take in politics. But seems as though the Republicans really deployed the “goon line” to rough up members to vote for the Medicare bill. Lets talk about that Medicare bill for a moment. It was a bad bill, in your Maximum Leader’s opinion. It was a bad bill for a number of different reasons. Not the least of which was that your Maximum Leader doesn’t believe it is the job of the federal government to provide prescription drug benefits to begin with. But it was also a bad bill because it’s intent was all wrong. The President believed he needed a prescription drug benefit to run on in the fall. The AARP wants to give more benefits to seniors - regardless of their cost. And the Republicans needed to seem kind-hearted; rather than fiscally responsible. Your Maximum Leader knows that party loyalty comes with a cost. But on significant issues where members have demonstrated long-time opposition to the issue, the party whips don’t always put the squeeze on members. Yeah, you squeeze the ones that might not have made up their minds. But, the ones you have no hope of winning over you don’t squeeze. It is very sad.

The Frum peice has another great line:

If Republicans consolidate their control over Washington while failing to reduce the size of government, they will inevitably be caught up in the care and feeding of the state. Industries that want favors or protection from government will seek out and hire powerful people to move the levers of power. F.A. Hayek warned decades ago against the dangers of a creeping corporate welfare state: “As the coercive power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of the directing power.”

Your Maximum Leader thinks it is important to point out some of the Cato charts again. If one examines them, you can see that the Republican Congress held down spending increases under the Clinton Administration. But are becoming spendthrifts under Bush. This is precisely the type of “care and feeding” we ought to worry about. Your Maximum Leader is not in favour of welfare. He is not in favour of corporate welfare. And he is growing more disillusioned with the Republicans in Washington.

What happened to the fiscally responsible Republicans of the Reagan years? (And early Clinton years?) Your Maximum Leader tends to agree with the other Opinion Journal piece he commended to you. The price of building up our national defence, an funding other Reagan policies, was to give the Democrats some of what they wanted. Go back to those Cato Charts and look at Figure 3. Only one year of Reagan’s 8 is in the top annual increases in Federal Discretionary spending. Only one! (And Bush Pere isn’t there at all… Your Maximum Leader also thinks Figure 4 is a good one showing the rate of growth between defence and non-defence discretionary spending.) Reagan had to give some to the Democrats to get what he wanted. It is the only way you can deal with a majority opposition party. Why does Bush have to pay the same prices?

Now let your Maximum Leader say that he favours the tax cuts that the President asked for, and the Congress delivered. And he favours spending on defence and national security. And to the extent that federal entitlement programs are entrenched and a swift elimination of those programs is both unwise and unrealistic; he realizes that significant federal dollars must be spent on entitlements. But all these other programs. All this pork! It is pretty disgusting. The Congress needed to tell the President that they would not permit the size and scope of federal spending (and consequently federal authority) to grow uncontrollably. We are in a war. So increased spending in some areas is to be expected. But what we have going on in Washington is beginning to border on criminal.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minons. Your Maximum Leader was catching up on reading the Minion & Lackey blog. Whereupon he found this great quotation:

You know, Darth Vader may have very well had the best job in the universe. He wore a cape, armor, a cool Nazi-esque helmet, and carried a high-tech sword. He could choke a guy from across the room and didn’t really seem to be too accountable to anybody in particular. Plus, he had his own personal specially modified TIE fighter.
- Minion

It made your Maximum Leader think for a moment. And you know, Darth Vader did have a pretty great job.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader tires of the continuing Janet Jackson boob contraversy. Surely he poked a little fun at the fact that he was shocked (shocked!) at being subjected to looking at a 37-year-old boob with a nipple shield. And long-timereaders may know that your Maximum Leader has some issues with pornography. But really… A little boob isn’t going to hurt anyone. No need for a lawsuit. Hey we should take a more British approach to this.

Allow your Maximum Leader to detail some of his positions on the whole “boob” issue. Your Maximum Leader loves boobs. He likes looking at them. He likes playing with them (okay, only Mrs. Villain’s…) He thinks natural boobs are best. You know them. They are the ones that match the bearer proportionally and don’t have that “enhanced” look. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t mind looking at boobs. He doesn’t mind them covered. Or uncovered. And, in fact, he finds boobs harmless. Overall, he thinks that we should become more tolerant of the boob in everyday life. Admittedly, he has a little problem with boobs when they are included in a situation without some sort of warning. (Like the Super Bowl halftime show. If they had said, “There will be discordant music, poor singing, scantily clad dancers, Kid Rock, and oh - a Boob during this halftime show.” before the halftime show; it would be okay.) A boob here or there is not a big deal. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t think that exposing a boob (or even both boobs!) on network TV is a big deal. We should loosen up a little.

Don’t get the wrong vibe from your Maximum Leader. He is not in favour of porn on network TV. But a boob in and of itself isn’t porn. Porn has its place in a free and open society. But it should be separated from plain ole boobs. In college, your Maximum Leader used to give some definitions: Nude - the artistic state of being without clothing; Naked - the state of being without clothing; and Nekkid - the state of being without clothing involving vigourous action by one or more people. Your Maximum Leader has never found anything wrong with nudes. And he isn’t upset by naked in a public forum either. Nekkid needs a little work. Generally people making porn are nekkid. Porn should be available to people that want it, but easily avoidable by those who don’t. Indeed, he would really like to see an internet “red light” district to segregate porn sites from other sites. Something like an .XXX extension instead of .com, .net, whatever. (It would solve those pesky whitehouse.com vs. whitehouse.gov problems too!) Anyway, we (as a society) should lighten up on boobs.

Of course, any female readers who would like to model their boobs in a Nakedvillainy tee shirt and perhaps become a paid endorser of said clothing should let your Maximum Leader know.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader loves it when the Big Hominid is creative. Look here. Your Maximum Leader loves it. He stared and stared at the “vision” graphic for a while. It was hard for him to tell if it was truely himself in a vision, or a photographic study called “ice crystals on blue food colouring.” Either way it is cool. Thank you Big Hominid. You are the greatest Poet Laureate ever!

Now off to watch a newly purchased Eddie Izzard DVD with Mrs. Villain! This one is “Circle.” Your Maximum Leader hears that it is not quite as funny as “Dress to Kill.” He already owns “Dress to Kill” and can attest to the fact that it is one of the funniest comedy routines he has ever seen. Your Maximum Leader has lowered his expectations somewhat, but is ready to laugh.

Note to any UK-based readers: Was the Eddie Izzard hosted ITN series “Mongrel Nation” any good? Your Maximum Leader read about it, but hasn’t found a way to obtain it yet. Comments appreciated.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader must have had some effect on the Poet Laureate’s posting schedule today. Yesterday 7 posts (and two guest posts). Today… Rien. Dear Hominid. Daily posting is still okay. Really. We love you. Come out of your little hominid hole and post some. If you don’t, your Maximum Leader will have to do unspeakable things to you. With Dwarves! Just let your imagination run wild with that for a moment. (Waiting… Waiting…) Unpleasant wasn’t it? Thought so.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wants to know this. What the hell is up with the Poet Laureate?!?!?!?! Really! You give this guy his own computer and a USB Flash Memory stick and he neglects eating, drinking, and defecation. (Okay, your Maximum Leader made that last one up. The Big Hominid would never give up making feces.) Look at all the blogging today. This. And this. And this. And, oh yeah… here and here too! Didn’t get enough? Well there is more and more.

All that in 24 hours. (Plus a post from the AirMarshal and the Minister of Agriculture too!) Great Jeezey Chreezy! (As Eddie Izzard would say in his James Mason voice.)

Dear Hominid. Is your Maximum Leader going to have to act in a role similar to Stephen King’s agent and tell you not to flood the market with your writings? Really now! Ration it out man! You can’t keep the price up if you are just a posting maniac!

Oh yeah… It’s all free. Well the point still stands. You make the rest of us look bad.

Carry on.

PS to the Minister of Agriculture: Do people who own Rolexes need to be taxed? Your Maximum Leader is sure you will say they do. He isn’t sure why he is even asking. (Except perhaps to get over his jealousy that you have a peacock and he doesn’t.) Just remember who is out there selling your calves Buster!

PS to any women reading this space: Does a man with a Rolex seem more sophisticated? Suave? Maximum Leaderish? No need to answer. Just let me dream.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader thought he would spend a few moments by blogging about some interesting things he saw on the web today.

First, it seems that anti-depressant drugs can drive you to suicide. Strange, since this seems to be the exact opposite of their intended effect. Perhaps more FDA testing is in order? Or perhaps kids should just buck it up some and get over their angst and woe-is-me attitude and get on with life. Put down the Gameboys and X-boxes and get out and live a little. Maybe the parents should parent a little more and not rely on drugs to improve their kids attitude when a little attention would work wonders. Your Maximum Leader sometimes wonders how the human race survives when he looks at teens out there. Hey you! Yes you little Goth laddie! Your Maximum Leader knows where there is a farm where you can get out shovel some manure, get some fresh air, and learn something about living…

Next. The good Kim Du Toit has an interesting post on religion. A little cynical. Okay. A lot cynical in fact. But an interesting point is underlying his writing. To what degree do we rely on the Judeo-Christian tradition as the foundation of laws and civil society? Quite a bit in fact, is your Maximum Leader’s answer. (He is still working on a big big post on this very subject, but put it aside and hasn’t looked at in in a few weeks.) Since we do rely on a particular religious tradition (among other traditions) as a pilar of civil society, to what extent do changes at odds with that tradition negatively impact civil society? That question is rhetorical. Your Maximum Leader, while wanting to spend a few minutes blogging, doesn’t want to pontificate right now. He shall file this away for another time.

Next. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t know what pleases him more about this next link. On the one hand, it gave the Elder Villainette such joy to read. She was positively estatic to know that there was a platinum and diamond encrusted Hello Kitty out there. (But she was crushed when she learned that under no circumstances would your Maximum Leader buy it.) On the other hand, knowledge that giving Hello Kitty som additional press is probably causing the Poet Laureate’s testes to shrink gives your Maximum Leader a twisted pleasure. Your Maximum Leader is amused to learn from this article that Hello Kitty herself probably got a few BoTox treatments herself. (And yes, your Maximum Leader knows he linked thrice to Sanrio’s web site. It is only to distress the Poet Laureate. To get one last jab in.. How about this as a new template for the Big Hominid Blog?)

Next. Have you ever had Vanilla Bean tea from Mighty Leaf? Your Maximum Leader thinks it is great. He ordered more today. And in case you wanted to know… Your Maximum Leader is a tea drinker, not a coffee drinker. He comes from a long line of tea drinkers. (Also Scotch drinkers, but that is another discussion.) Although a tea drinker, he doesn’t go for most wimpy herbal teas. Mrs. Villain prefers teas with names like “Sleepytime” and “Lemon Zinger.” Your Maximum Leader is a tea snob. He keeps a supply of Earl Grey and Russian Caravan tea from Harrods of Knightsbridge on hand. (Loose leaf of course.) For the sake of full disclosure, if you consider traditional Japanese Green Tea to be an herbal tea; then your Maximum Leader does drink herbal tea. Regardless… When the esteemed Brother and Sister in Law of your Maximum Leader offered to share some of this Vanilla Bean tea from Mighty Leaf with him, he was planning not to be impressed. But, much to my surprise. It was great. Not a wimpy herbal or fruity tea at all. So if you like tea, take your Maximum Leader’s recommendation and go to Mighty Leaf and get yourself some. And by the way, when your Maximum Leader ordered his tea he happened to write a short note about how he discovered the tea and enjoyed it. A few hours later he got an e-mail from Gary Shinner the founder and CEO of Mighty Leaf thanking your Maximum Leader for his order and kind comments. Now, your Maximum Leader doesn’t presume to think that Mr. Shinner is reading every favourable comment he gets on the web. But even if it was a lowly intern sending an e-mail out under Mr. Shinner’s name, your Maximum Leader really really likes the effort! Way to go Gary!

Next. Did you see the good Kilgore Trout moved to a new home? No? Well go now and read about the nature of mass-transit in Kilgore’s good city. And while you are there, check out the sidebar link to “Join the Red Army.” (NB to Kilgore: Very catchy link. Here is another Red Army link you might like.) Like Kilgore, your Maximum Leader likes his wines red or white. (But mostly red.) Indeed, his favourite wine is Egri Bickaver. Egri Bickaver is also known as “Bulls Blood.” While not expensive, it is a really good wine. (If you like really really dry wines that is.) Be warned! You might get hooked if you start drinking it!

Lastly. Did you chance to read the William F. Buckley reprint on NRO today? This one? The reprint of a speech WFB gave to West Point cadets in 1971? Interesting stuff my minions! Your Maximum Leader was particularly interested in the John Kerry quote about the “mystical war against communism.” Hummm… Mystical war against communism. Oh! Kerry must have been speaking bout that mystical war that went on from roughly 1948 to 1989 that most sensible people call the “Cold War.” Oh right! How could your Maximum Leader have missed the appelation? Well… John F. Kerry… If you happen to be reading this blog (which most likely you are not) allow your Maximum Leader to give you some advice. More BoTox buddy. This campaign is going to give you wrinkles like you’ve never seen. It’s gonna take a lot of ketchup money to keep it going for you.

That is all.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was really feeling under the weather on Monday and Tuesday. So bad that he could not even prop his fingers up on the keyboard to blog. But he did lay in his comfy bed in the Villainschloss watching Democratic Primary results last night. Kerry appears to be the man for the Dems. Humm… Your Maximum Leader was listening to all the pundits last night and this morning saying that Kerry wants Clark, Edwards (and perhaps Dean) to stay in the race a bit longer. He supposes this is mainly due to the fact that he doesn’t want the Bush people pounding him early and often. Wake up and smell the coffee John F. Kerry. The pounding will come sooner than you think. It will come from other desperate Democrats. Or it will come from the Bush people. Take another round of BoTox injections and buck up laddie!

(NB: Is your Maximum Leader the only one who seems to think that Kerry is looking younger on the campaign trail? I think it is BoTox. I mean really, where the hell did all those wrinkles on his forehead go? Of course, this leads into another discussion (for another time)… Is it wise to inject yourself with a lethal toxin to look a little younger? Hummm….)

Well… Your Maximum Leader thinks that Dean will drop out before the big round of primaries on March 3. And Clark will be done before the end of February too. I think Edwards will show he has some regional strength in the South, but will be crushed by a Kerry onslaught. We’ll see.

Carry on.

What do you make of this?

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/01/this_is_an_exce.html

The Analphilosopher (p://analphilosopher.blogspot.com/)

Has a quick reference to:

Dale Jamieson on Beef Addiction

(Dale Jamieson, “Animal Liberation Is an Environmental Ethic,” Environmental Values 7 [February 1998]: 41-57, at 46)
Now, the humble Smallholder is by no means a trained philosopher and makes no claims about his ability to construct a flawless logic proof, but it seems to me that Dr. Jamieson‚ÄövÑv¥s argument is flawed. He may have more evidence supporting his position (I clicked on Analphilosopher‚ÄövÑv¥s link, but there was no longer version of the argument on Jamieson‚ÄövÑv¥s page), but as it stands, this paragraph fails to convince.

Jamieson lists a variety of problems that result from American and European meat-rich diets. All true ‚ÄövÑv=nuff. He then makes the logic leap I can‚ÄövÑv¥t follow: environmentalists should support the animal liberationist agenda.

The flaw, I would argue, is that consumption of beef does not necessarily result in health problems, hunger, social division, climate change, destruction of forest, overgrazing, and the destruction of plant and animals (Let‚ÄövÑv¥s add erosion to the list as well, shall we?). These problems arise from the METHOD by which industrial countries produce beef.

As an environmentalist, I would like to rectify all of those problems, but eliminating beef from our diet is not necessary. We should instead argue for a shift to production of beef through rotational grazing on marginal crop lands. And then our problems are, if I may paraphrase Mr. Kent (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114814/), ‚ÄövÑv gone.‚ÄövÑvp

Many of the health problems associated with beef are the result of the fat content. The high marbling of fat that the American consumer has been trained to seek is not natural; it is instead the result of force-feeding grain to captive animals. Grass-fed beef is much leaner and healthier. If we shifted away from the economies of scale and ended the corn subsidies that promote grain feeding, the economics of production would change as well. Grass fed beef is more expensive ‚ÄövÑv¨ a higher price (Google grass-fed beef and you will find prices from $4-$7/lb hanging weight for bulk purchases and considerably higher for smaller sets of meat) would lead to falling demand and we would see people eating smaller quantities of leaner beef. Of course, a shift away from feedlots would also dramatically reduce the suffering of steers bound for the dinner table. While I agree that minimizing suffering is a good thing, I am not prepared to join the animal liberationists in making the leap to attributing moral standing to our livestock.

I often here the complaint that meat-rich diets take grain off the plates of poor people. The production of meat vie grain is remarkably inefficient; it takes about ten to twenty pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, depending on cattle breed, age, genetics, and environmental conditions. If no cattle were fed grain, the grain itself would not be produced. Corn and other grains are heavily subsidized in America; without the livestock market, it would become an even more unprofitable crop and farmers, being rational workers, would shift production away from grain. So the grain that animals consume would not necessarily go to the poor kid in Somalia anyway. I would like to see an end to the subsidies since that would result in decreased prodiction, causing a rise in grain prices and a resulting unprofitability in feedlot operations.

Furthermore, for ‚ÄövÑv marginal‚ÄövÑvp areas that are currently assigned to grazing, removing livestock would result in a net loss of calories available for human consumption. Hillsides are hard to till and plant. If they weren‚ÄövÑv¥t grazed, the grassland plants would remain inedible. One of the miracle of the cow or the sheep is that they turn energy undigestible to humans into a product we can eat.

The destruction of forest lands are a harder problem to overcome. The loss of the rain forest and other biozones happens in the third world and is less associated with our high meat consumption than one might think. But even if we turned away from beef, those forests and jungles will still be slashed and burned. Hungry poor people want to feed their families and will hack farms of one kind or another out of the wilderness. The real solution to habitat loss in not going to be found in changing yuppie dining habits. We need to control population growth. The same goes for overgrazing. The expansion of the Sahara into the sahel is cause by overpopulation, not what you ate last night. The people herding goats on the outskirts of Africa‚ÄövÑv¥s great desert are not producing meat for the international market; they are trying to feed their children.

Erosion and the reduction of plant diversity in this country is directly caused by monoculture production of grains for animal consumption. Shifting to a more sustainable agricultural model featuring grass-fed beef will solve both problems. Instead of leaving hillsides bare between cornstalks vulnerable to wind and rain, a solid pasture sod will hold the soil in place. If we rotationally graze, cattle will not overgraze each area and will not favor one species over another. A well-managed pasture sward that is grazed one day of thirty will be healthier, stronger, more diverse, and do a better job of erosion control than a swath of grassland left to natural development. Additionally, if graziers do their jobs well, very little in the way of petrochemicals will be used ‚ÄövÑv¨ for either chemical fertilization or tractor fuel. A mob of cattle grazing for short periods of time will spread natural fertilizer pretty evenly around the paddock. We won‚ÄövÑv¥t need to spray our grain crops with herbicides and pesticides. We won‚ÄövÑv¥t need to plant or harvest with machinery.

In short, I think Jamieson is much mistaken when he assumes that there is a natural alliance between environmentalists and aninmal liberationists.

Disclosure:
Smallholder is a farmer who custom-raises humanely treated, drug-free, grassfed beef. I‚ÄövÑv¥d add organic too, but I can‚ÄövÑv¥t afford the multi-thousand dollar expense of being ‚ÄövÑv certified‚ÄövÑvp organic, even if I meet all the requirements. Right now my market is people who care about their meat‚ÄövÑv¥s quality and animal welfare. I don‚ÄövÑv¥t have to be much of a salesman. I sold my last calf last week when the local paper ran a story about the high herbicide concentration in supermarket beef and two coworkers turned to me and said ‚ÄövÑv don‚ÄövÑv¥t you raise beef? I would like to see an overall shift to my style of production not because it would benefit me directly, but because it would lead to improved environmental conditions, healthier Americans, and a healthier rural economy focused on family farms.

The current large-scale grain-fed beef production marginalizes the family farm that cannot keep up with the economies of scale and the ruthless logic of the marketplace. If we moved to pasture production, the center of the farm operation would be the farmer‚ÄövÑv¥s knowledge and skill, not the effective use of borrowed capital.

Two good books that call for a change in American agriculture are:

Salad Bar Beef by Joel Salatin:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/096381091X/qid=1075742300/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-0319984-6563958?v=glance&s=books

This is more than an agricultural how-to manual. Salatin has developed an entire philosophy of farming that values the environment, farm families, and consumers.

The Contrary Farmer by Gene Logsdon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0930031741/qid=1075742387/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-0319984-6563958?v=glance&s=books

Logsdon reflects on the impact of industrial farming on the environment and rural communities.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is shocked (Shocked!) to have been subjected to a 37 year old bosom on the telly last night! He is even more shocked that the innocent Villainettes have been subjected to this pornographic half-time show! And to think the “Eye” network would do this to millions of Americans. Your Maximum Leader supposes they just had to compete with the Lingere Bowl somehow.

(NB: Is your Maximum Leader the only one who thinks that the “flames behind the CBS logo” station identifications look a bit too much like Sauron’s eye from LOTR?)

Anyway… Overall a very good game; made so by a good ending. Of course, if you missed the first two quarters you didn’t really miss anything. For a few moments your Maximum Leader feared that this game was going to be scoreless at the end of regulation. Your Maximum Leader wishes the New England Patriots a hearty “Huzzah!” for their victory. (Mrs Villain was rooting hard for you.) And to the Carolina Panthers, your Maximum Leader sends you on your way with a pat on the shoulder and a “Good show chaps!”

Commercials weren’t as good as expected. Sad really that the ads have become the show within the show. Your Maximum Leader thought the whole pupose for Tivo’s invention was to edit out ads? But not Super Bowl ads.

Well… While you are out there contemplating Janet’s bosom just remember, MTV will never do another half-time show again.

Carry on.