Intelligent design advocates frequently say they only want to provide balance and to “teach the controversy.”

The problem is that there is no real controversy. Intelligent design is not accepted as science, in much the same way the holocaust deniers are not accepted as historians. Both intelligent design advocates and holocaust deniers fail to follow the established methodology in “their” respective disciplines.

Americans have come to believe that opposing views should be given equal time. But sometimes this valuable belief has been stretched to ridiculous extremes.

In yesterday’s Washington Post, Richard Cohen writes about the ridiculousness of C-Span wanting to “balance” a historian with a holocaust denier. Really. I’m not making this up. Go read.

As I read Cohen’s article, the analogy to intelligent design became clearer and clearer.

Ally objects (as I knew she would) to my piece on the Schiavo situation.

Before I address her points, let me make clear that the quotation marks around the word “conservative” were not intended to negatively characterize conservatives in general. The intent was to highlight the point that those who want the government to intervene in the dying process are hardly acting conservatively - inasmuch that conservatives generally believe in individual free will and a minimum of government intrusion in our lives.

Go read Ally’s post. I’ll wait.

Ally writes:

1. Terry is not in a persistent vegetative state. She is brain damaged, and has
had no therapy. I have seen video footage of Terry smiling and laughing, holding
her mother’s hand, and looking in her mother’s eyes. Her parent’s claim that
they showed the footage to a doctor, who claimed he could work Terry and help
her speak and regain movement again. The woman is brain damaged, so no, she is
never going to be the Terry Schiavo she was. However, certainly, it is worth
looking into the therapy that might help her regain a little of who she is.

First of all, my understanding is that she had extensive therapy against the advice of doctors back in 1990. The doctors pointed out that her cerebral cortex was destroyed by her heart attack. Both her husband and parents sought therapy anyway, even moving her out of state to California for additional therapy when Terri was unresponsive to the therapy she was receiving in Florida. All in all, she had FOUR years of therapy with no improvement.

In fact, let’s not use the phrase “no improvement.” Evidently, because her body continued to breathe despite the death of her brain, her body kept trying to heal the brain damage and gradually filled the space that once contained her cerebral cortex with spinal fluid.

Eventually, Michael realized that his wife was dead. Although he had been cooperating with Terri’s parents for four years, he became irritated that they would not acknowledge reality and moved out of their house and began trying to withdraw the maintenance of Terri’s body. (The move out of the parents’ house also involved an argument over splitting the proceeds of the malpractice settlement.)

The gambit of trying to give her new “therapy” is an attempt by the parents to make Michael look bad. If, as all the diagnostic tests and doctors are correct, there is not much “therapy” can do to teach spinal fluid to act as a conscious mind.

Ally also writes:

2. Michael Schiavo has consistently tried to end Terry’s life. There are nurses
who took care of her who were willing to testify that he would call in and ask
if “the bitch” had died yet. He was given the insurance monies, with which he
swore he would take care of her and get her therapy - which he has not done. He
has prevented her from having dental exams, female exams, etc. Her blinds are
not allowed to be raised, and he frequently bans her parents from going to see
her. And of course, he is living with another woman and has children with her.
I’m not thinking he’s a real good cheerleader to have on Terry’s side.

Um, Michael clung to hope for FOUR years. Hell, I would have realized the inevitable well before that. As I mentioned in an earlier post, one look at my beloved Uncle John’s MRI was enough for me to know that he was well and truly gone. So Michael deluded himself for four years. This is understandable v± denial is a powerful thing. Terri’s parents have constructed an elaborate fantasy over the last fifteen years. The fact that Michael has grieved for his wife, and moved on after a decade - finding a new life partner isn’t particularly appaling.

Ally then writes:

3. The judge has never been to see Terry, and doctors who are paid for by
Michael is the only testimony he has heard.

Does Ally really believe that the doctors are really part of some anti Terri cabal? That the doctors at her various treatment facilities have all somehow been bought off by Michael? This beggars the imagination. The party line about the bias of the doctors has been trumpeted by the pro-life fringe movement so often that people have come to accept it uncritically. I would ask Ally to stop and think about this for a couple of minutes. Does it really seem plausible that ALL the medical professionals who have worked with Terri are venal bribe-taking murderers? That none of them have a conscience? Are they faking the MRIs showing the spinal fluid where the cortex ought to be? Are all the MRI technicians bought off?

As to the judge meeting Terri - why would he? When all the medical professionals say that she is brain dead, what would his visiting her hospice bed add? Note that Terri’s parents could not produce any medical professionals who would testify that she is not in a persistant vegetative state. They did find two guys (hmmm, sought out and paid for by them), who, without actually examining Terri, opined that there were new therapies being developed that might be tried- but had no medical literature with which to back their claims.

Let’s pause and weight the testimony for a second. The pro-life folks want us to believe that two isolated doctors are telling the truth and every other doctor is lying? That the one doctor who was specifically sought out to a party in the case is more reliable than all the doctors who were not selected by any party but only became part of the case when Terri entered their facility?

Ally, while agreeing with me* that “Michael’s character, while dubious and disgusting, has nothing to do with the case itself. People get caught up in hating him, and forget the reality and law of the case,” still seems to be caught up in the “conflict of interest” issue:

She writes:

Given that Michael has clearly conflicting interests, why shouldn’t her family
be in charge of Terry’s fate? THERE IS NO LIVING WILL STATING SHE WANTED TO DIE IF IN SUCH A SITUATION.

I assume this is a reference to the fact that Michael will inherit Terri’s estate when she dies. I am not aware of the extent of the estate, but it would have to be substantial if it is worth a decade of legal wrangling. And if Michael does have this financial conflict of interest, doesn’t that mean that her parents do too? If the Schiavos are divorced, wouldn’t that shift the estate to her parents as next of kin? And wasn’t part of their falling out with Michael financial?

As to the living will, Ally is correct. This underscores the importance of everyone getting a living will. But the court judge found that there was clear evidence of Terri’s beliefs on the matter. See the court ruling here - scroll down to pages five and six. The only person to argue that Terri would want to live was her mother - whose memory of a decades-old event suddenly became clearer between deposition and trial and was clearly in conflict with chronology. Go ahead and read the court ruling - it is pretty damning of the mother’s testimony.

Keep reading through the court opinion - it shows that the testimony that Terri is brain dead was UNREFUTED:

“The medical evidence before this court conclusively established that she has no
hope of ever regaining consciousness and therefore capacity, and that without
the feeding tube she will die in seven to fourteen days. The UNREBUTTED
(emphasis Smallholder’s) testimony before this court is that such death would be
painless…

…The overwhelming credible evidence (overwhelming the
duly noted mother’s “perceptions” - Smallholder) is that Terri Schiavo has been
totally unresponsive since lapsing into the coma almost ten years ago, that her
movements are reflexive and predicated on brain stem activity alone, that she
suffers from severe structural brain damage and to a large extent her brain has
been replaced by pinal fluid, that with the exception of one witness whom the
court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional
and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses.
The testimony of Dr. Barnhill establishes that Terri Schiavov s reflex actions
such as breathing and movement shows merely that her brain stem and spinal cord
are intact…

…the UNREBUTTED (Emphasis Smallholder again) evidence
remains that Terri Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state.”

Whew. Given that the Schiavos had the immense resources of both the pro-life movement and (later) the governor’s mansion and were still unable to even challenge the medical evidence is pretty telling. Unable to win on the medical level, the Schiavos and the pro-life crowd behind them have turned to public opinion. The parents and not the facts seem to be winning, at least in this little corner of the blogosphere.

I await Ally’s reply. Unless of course, you humble servant of the soil is unrebuttable.

FOOTNOTE: Links to court decisions found here.

* After reading the court decisions, it appears that I was a bit hasty in condemning Michael - he appears very differently when not viewed through the prism of the Schindler’s propaganda machine.

As a public school teacher, I ought not to tell kids that I am praying for them when there are difficult things happening in their lives. So I frequently tell them that I’ll “hold a good thought” for them.

But I need not be so nonsectarian in the blogosphere.

So send your prayers out to:

Acidman - Condolences on the loss of your mother.

Sadie - We hope your dogbit family member heals rapidly.

Brian B. - We hope the Feared Redhead will get what she wants, and if not, that you are able to keep the wolves at bay for as long as necessary.

Supershadow.com has a scene-by-scene description (yes, it’s merely text, not images) of the newest “Revenge of the Sith” trailer. His site also contains all the info you’ll ever need about the plot of the movie, from beginning to end. His latest spoiler tells us how Anakin loses his limbs and goes into the lava.

Question for the politics hounds: if “liberal” and “conservative” could be viewed as extremes on a sliding scale (I don’t seriously believe this, but let’s assume it for the sake of argument), is Darth Vader more a liberal or a conservative? I’ve noticed that, in the real world, one side usually accuses the other of some form of fascism or totalitarianism– conservatives want to legislate morality, Bush is creating a police state, etc.; meanwhile, liberals are closet commies, being transnational progressivists who erroneously believe humanity is perfectible, science is the answer rather than tradition, and a utopian state of affairs is possible…

Where does Vader fit? He’s obviously not a democrat (in the lower-case “d” sense); “Attack of the Clones” made clear that he’s got nothing against dictatorships. He’s a highly religious dude, being a Force user and Jedi/Sith. At the same time, he’s conversant with the latest technology (young Anakin was good at repairing things, you’ll recall), which bespeaks a techie/scientific side. He’s part of a revolution to overthrow the Old Republic, but he’s also called to preserve the new order.

What is Darth Vader? A liberal or a conservative?

UPDATE: The “Revenge of the Sith” preview is now available for all to watch over at StarWars.com.

_

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is, once again, letting everyone know that he will be in Las Vegas, Nevada next week. During that time he does not anticipate that he will be blogging. If you would like a shot at guest blogging here, you need to let him know before Saturday evening.

So far, the lovely and talented (and downright sexy) Sadie has signed on for at least one post. One can hope that the Smallholder, Poet Laureate, Foreign Minister, Air Marshal, or Minister of Propaganda might decide to have a go at it as well.

So, if you want to guest blog, notify your Maximum Leader at: maxldr-blog -at- yahoo.com.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has made a second contribution as a guest blogger for Sadie.

Feel free to cruise over and read: Fistful of Fortnights: Knowing Sadie’s Love of Tarantino…

Carry on.

Deep in the bowels of Las Vegas’s swankest casinos, a new bloodsport has come into prominence. Only the richest, the most privileged, the most powerful people have even a ghost of a chance of sitting cageside. The event features two of the most vicious creatures ever to come into conflict in the history of life on this planet. They reenact a drama once played out in the Black Forest before crowds of cheering Prussians. What sport could this be?

Dwarf versus Doberman Pinscher Mortal Combat.

And who, you ask, has orchestrated this event for the past ten years?

Your Maximum Leader, the most avid dwarf-abuser of them all.

A Doberman Pinscher’s bite exerts well over three hundred pounds of pressure per square inch. A dwarf, properly goaded, can bite through jail bars. The Doberman’s main advantages: agility, a seeming immunity to pain, and the drive to rip out the opponent’s throat. The dwarf’s main advantages? A specialized version of jujitsu crafted by Japanese dwarves centuries ago to deal with dog attacks… and a very short neck.

Martial dwarf versus mad Doberman: who will win?

I’d give anything to be cageside for the main event: a long-awaited match between über-dwarf Ball Scar and the terrifying, dwarf-slaughtering Doberman known only as Lilly. Perhaps our Maximum Leader will return from Vegas with photos of the latest “Extreme Dwarferman,” but we know his personal rule is “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” The masses can only stand and wait with bated breasts. Pray for pictures.

_

This post will probably get me famed. I know that Ally (God bless her feisty little redheaded heart) is probably already breaking out the butane.

Read my earlier post first.

Many of the conservative bloggers in Naked Villainy’s little corner of the blogosphere have taken a stand beside the parents of Terri Schiavo.

For a quick sample, see:

Cranky Necon

Common Sense Runs Wild, a stronger case here.

Sadie actually has a sidebar category.

Brutally Honest

Common Sense has a link to a set of videos that purport to show Terri demonstrating intellectual activity. Supposedly, these videos would convince anyone that she is not vegetative. They didn’t convince me. More importantly, they didn’t convince Terri’s doctors, who have much more sophisticated diagnostic methods than “Look! She blinks at a set of flashing lights!”

Absent from any of the histrionic defense of Terri’s life is any sense that Terri’s life ended years ago. Her body may keep running along, but Terri is gone. I have yet to see a SINGLE doctor describe her as being in anything other than a persistent (read: permanent) vegetative state.

One can understand her parents taking up permanent residence in the state of denial. Losing a child is the absolute worst thing I can imagine. I can see that it would be very easy that their hope and love would lead them to see awareness that simply isn’t there. As described in the previous post, if my family had not been solidly grounded in reality, they might have interpreted Uncle John’s body’s groans when they turned him over to be examples of him reacting to external stimuli.

Hell, I remember pithed frogs reacting to external stimuli when we hooked up small batteries in biology class. Reaction to external stimuli does not mean that someone is not in a vegetative state.

We can assume that both Terri’s parents and her husband might be biased (and the husband’s conduct in this has been far from exemplary). The parents, Mr. Schiavo, Terri’s lawyers, or the general blogging community have the medical expertise to diagnose brain activity. The doctors seem to be unanimous. Perhaps - and I’m going out on a limb here - they are right.

(If any of Naked Villainy’s readers are doctors with neurological expertise, please watch Common Sense’s videos. If you believe that they show brain activity, please e-mail me and I’ll have to reconsider the thesis of this post).

If she is indeed brain dead, then all of the rest of the hub-bub becomes moot. A dead person, by definition, has no right to life. If she is dead, then who the hell are we to tell the husband what to do with the body?

The Pro-Terri camp will respond to this by saying, well, there have been (a few, isolated, exceedingly rare) cases in which someone deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state has recovered. Shouldn’t we keep all vegetative people alive and pray for a miracle?

I have a question for you “conservatives” out there. If we grant that one in ten thousand of patients diagnosed as brain dead one day make a miraculous recovery, who ought to pay for the hideous medical expense of caring for those in vegetative states for years.

It is hard to put a price on life. But we live in the real world. If the people who are using Terri as a pro-life stalking horse want to keep everyone like Terri or my Uncle alive indefinitely, do they expect every member of society to contribute to their maintenance through higher insurance premiums? Or should we rise taxes and let the government take over the medical costs? Should we shift resources away from government programs that have actual benefits so that we can support folks who, 99.9999% of the time will gain absolutely no benefit from it?

I have another question for you “conservatives” out there. Should the government be involved in making this very personal decision for you? Or should the citizens control their own lives and deaths? Do “conservatives” really want to allow democratic majorities to trump individual and familial decision-making? I recognize that the issue of whether Terri would have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state is in dispute; certainly we can’t take Mr. Schiavo’s testimony at face value. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the pro-Terri camp would like to prevent the deaths of people who HAVE clearly expressed their desire to die should they ever face a similar situation.

Let me state right now, as clearly as possible, that if I suffer a catastrophic brain injury, I want to die. Keep me alive long enough to harvest the organs, then let me die. If any of you delusional and misguided Christians file a lawsuit to prevent my wishes from being carried out in the misguided delusion that I might be miraculously saved, you better hope that I don’t get that miracle. If I do, I’m ordering my big toe to twitch, crawling out of the hospice, getting my 307, and coming to get you. Really. If I’m not allowed to die, someone else is going into the ground.

Obviously, I’m passionate about my own right to die should the unthinkable happen. My Christian beliefs have no conflict with letting my shell go. I’m dead and my soul has gone to its reward. Why should the belief system of some meddlesome do-gooder from outside my family trump my expressed desires? Why should the state favor the do-gooder’s religious beliefs over mine?

Pro-Terri advocates frequently tie their “culture of life” into the pro-life movement.

The status of the unborn and the brain dead are not morally equivalent. A fetus’ potential for life outweighs the extinguished potential of someone in a vegetative state. Whether the fetus is already a human being is something about which reasonable people can disagree. Whether the fetus has the potential to be a human being is indisputable. The destruction of the brain destroys personhood. Potential has run its course.

Another troubling element of the movement to pro-long Terri’s death is the precedent that is being set. While her husband does indeed appear to be a bit shady (but perhaps I have just been overwhelmed by the “save Terri” propaganda), this case will set a precedent. Do we want parents to be able to override the judgment of spouses? To be able to override the expressed wishes of their child? Don’t even get me started about how some estranged parents have abused their legal ability to trump the wishes of long-term homosexual partners.

Flow chart:

1) Does Terri have brain function?
a) If you believe the professionals who have tested diagnostic tools -> She has already died. All other arguments are about burial arrangements.
b) If you believe the naturally unobjective parents -> She does not. Go to point 2.

2) Terri has severely limited brain function. Would Terri want to live that way?
a) Terri’s husband is telling the truth. She would want to die. Go to point 3.
b) Terri’s husband is a lying dog. Terri never expressed her wishes one way or the other. Go to point 5.

3) Terri wants to die. Should individuals be allowed to make life or death decisions for themselves?
a) Yes. Let her die. All other arguments are about burial arrangements.
b) No. Life is precious. Go to point 4.

4) The government is keeping Terri alive against her wishes. Who should pay?
a) The insurance company. We all, including those who disagree with the decision to keep her alive, pay through higher premiums.
b) The government. We all, including those who disagree with the decision to keep her alive, pay through higher taxes or reduced services.
c) Private contributors. Will all vegetative victims have patons? Who will assign responsibility?

5) Terri’s wishes are unclear. Who should make the decision for people who leave no living will?
a) The spouse or next of kin. In this case, let her die. All other arguments are about funeral arrangements.
b) Parents. Go to point 6.

6) Do the parents believe in prolonging life?
a) Yes. Go to point 4.
b) No. Go to point 7.

7) If the parents and spouse are against prolonging life, what interests trump family interests?
a) The government. Let the current ideology of the mob prevail. When the mob’s collective mind changes, change policy. Also go to point 4 for payment.
b) Christian groups. Go to point 8.
Which Christian group’s theology will be favored by the government?
a) Absolute right-to-lifers. Throw out the First Amendment. Establish theocracy and oppress progressive Christians. Go to point 4 for payment.
b) Progressive Christians. Throw out the First Amendment. Establish theocracy and oppress fundamentalist Christians. Let her die. All other arguments are about funeral arrangements. Wait - hold that - there are no other arguments because we live in a theocracy. Conform, sinners.

Would someone from the “pro” Terri camp explain to me the legal precedent they are trying to set here?

UPDATE: A commenter at the Hyscience site says: “This poor woman just needs nursing care, and God-willing that we see her being blessed with a miraculous recovery.” This sounds just like my ne’er-do-well cousin.

Two years ago, my Uncle John had a massive stroke.

The MRIs showed three quarters of his brain had been destroyed by the bleeding. I still remember the pictures - a malignant stain spreading from one hemisphere to the other.

Uncle John was a hale and hearty man at 79. He might have had a paunch (what male member of the Smallholder clan doesn’t), but he was strong and fit. He worked on the day he died.

The day he died his body kept breathing. Everything that made John, well, John, disappeared as the ruptured veins drowned his cerebral cortex. The mind and soul were gone. All that was left was a shell.

After the doctors confirmed that there was no chance of recovery, my family moved its patriarch to a hospice. Withholding food and water, they tended his shell for days until the stubborn body shut down.

At the funeral, my cousins talked about how hard it was to care for the shell. To have to clean up the natural processes of their formerly proud and independent father was heartbreaking. Occasionally, John’s body would groan and twitch. Now, being the sturdy, pragmatic types produced by diary farms throughout the Midwest, they intellectually realized that those groans, sighs, and spasms were artifacts of the dying process, not John’s attempts to send message to his family. But it was still hard.

Another cousin, a black sheep of the family (my father says that after you shake hands with him, you ought to count your fingers), has become born again. Born again in a way that lets you feel morally superior without imposing inconvenient restrictions on your own behavior. At family gatherings, his unctuous, oily demeanor always drives me to flee to the other side of the room.

This guy walks up to John’s kids and says: “It was wrong to take him out of the hospital. If you had left him on life support, God might have miraculously healed your father.”

Johnny told him that that would have been fine if he was willing to move his born-again backside to Elkhorn and spend his life wiping his uncle’s butt.

Johnny was kinder than I would have been. When Johnny related this conversation, I wanted to walk across the room and pop said holier-than-thou miracle boy in the nose.

Look who’s back,
Back again.
Smallholder’s back
Tell a friend.

Stay tuned.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader does love his minions. You are all so bright and beautiful. And from time to time one of you writes him with something really really smart. (As opposed to all those soliciatations for viagra, tight college nymphomaniacs, and off-shore investment opportunities that he receives.)

This week a post prompted a thoughtful question. The post was concerning the Smallholder’s assertion (which appears to be confirmed in a roundabout way by the Bush Administration) that the US’s tax rates put us on the left side of the Laffer Curve. (Read here to catch up.)

To the whole concept of the Laffer Curve and tax cuts, loyal reader “S” writes thus:

Discussion of your posting between me and some of my fellow independent Philistines led to a debate about whether or not tax breaks at the top of the socio-economic matrix were more or less beneficial than breaks more towards my end of the spectrum, which is squarely middle class.

While it is immediately obvious to me that, as an American, I should always back whichever measure decreases my simple taxes, I am in favour of further reduction of taxes for other reasons as well. Specifically, I am in favour of reducing taxes on the middle class. My reasoning is simple. The benefits of tax cuts among corporations and the very wealthy are wisely applied. That is to say, they are invested, often overseas, or they are held as cash reserves, or, maybe, if there is a good economic or political reason, they are invested locally in ways that may or may not help stimulate growth of the local economy.

The fact of the matter is that corporations that are profitable and people of wealth already have the basic necessities and reasonable amounts of fun monies. The middle and lower classes do not, as a whole. Nor do they, as a whole, have a great deal of economic sense. This means that a three hundred dollar tax break among the ranks of the lesser economic entities end up in a return of nearly three hundred dollars into per person into the economy, while a corporate break most often does not.

As you and your gang of henchmen are undoubtedly more informed in such matters, do you have any relevant comment or observation which speaks to where and how to best apply tax cuts in order to benefit the overall economy?

Whew! What a question.

Well “S,” your Maximum Leader will have to provide just cursory comments to your thoughtful question. If he had more time, he would attempt to get some hard numbrs for you. He used to have a fun little book from which he could get some figures for you - but he can’t lay his hands upon it at this moment.

Your Maximum Leader will have to rely on the teachings of Karl Marx to disagree immediately with one of your premises. Namely the premise that additional money (from a tax cut) to the wealthy is “invested, often overseas, or they are held as cash reserves, or, maybe, if there is a good economic or political reason, they are invested locally in ways that may or may not help stimulate growth of the local economy.”

Comrade Marx teaches us that a Capitalist (aka: a wealthy person) is always looking to accumulate more capital. Thereby making himself (or herself to use sex-inclusive language) more wealthy. Money that is invested, whether overseas or domestically, is done so to create capital. A cash reserve is money invested in a bank. And as we all know, banks loan out money to capitalists to create more capital. So all the money you are describing, in one way or another, is being put back into the economy and (one hopes) creating more wealth.

Your Maximum Leader will have to rely on a personal anecdote for now (perhaps he’ll be able to get some statistics for you later) concerning the wealthy and investing. Your Maximum Leader knows quite a few people who would - by any reasonable person’s estimation - qualify as being wealthy. All of these people, regardless of how they came into their wealth (by inheritance or entrepreneurship) are all actively pursuing making more money. They do not invest overseas as much as one might think (because overseas markets do not afford basic protections as does the American market - protections like financial transparency and regular accounting standards). And they tend not to hold large cash reserves (because all a cash reserve gets you is a simple interest return - investing in blue chip stocks will - likely - get you a much greater return long-term).

These are individuals, not corporations. Admittedly, many corporations will do what they can to squeeze out every bit of profit they can. This is especially true of public corporations. But one shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that profit and increasing shareholder wealth is what a corporation is all about. That is its basic reason for being. If you own stock, or shares of a mutual fund, or invest in a 401(k); you are one of those shareholders. Wouldn’t you feel cheated if the corporation didn’t try to earn you some return on your investment? Isn’t that what you are counting on?

Anyho… Back to the tax cuts…

The basic argument made by Arthur Laffer, Jude Wanniski and other supply-siders is that money in the hands of individuals and not the government will stimulate the economy. So long as tax rates remain modest, government revenues will increase as the economy grows. When tax rates are too high, individuals will hold on to their money and not spend/invest it in a way that will result in stimulation of the economy.

Now, many economists argue these premises. But since Ronald Reagan no politician has effectively argued these premises. So, US tax rates are among the lowest (if not the lowest) in the developed world. And our economy is the strongest and largest.

According to the prevalent theory, a tax cut favouring “the rich” will have a more salutary affect on the economy because, as your Maximum Leader anecdotally related, “the rich” will put more money back into the economy. The $300 tax cuts received by the “middle” and “lower” class people also will go into the economy and cause it to grow. The question comes down to how much money do you want to put into the economy.

As for your Maximum Leader, he is a general proponent of tax cuts. Where will a tax cut do the most good? That is a tough row to hoe. Given the complexity of the federal spending/debt side of the equation goes, it is hard to tell just what one would want to do. As the federal debt grows, it shrinks the amount of available capital; thereby reducing the possble growth of the taxable economy. So, cutting the debt is a good step towards boosting the economy. Cutting spending (thereby slowing the growth of the debt) is also a good call. Your Maximum Leader believes that these are more prudent steps to take right now than further tax cuts. This is a change of position for your Maximum Leader from just a few months ago. After reading a few big economic reports from the GAO and Congressional Budget Office he thinks that freezing the tax rates where they are, and then working to cut spending and pay down (off?) the debt is a better course of action.

This is, upon a moments reflection, a rather facile discussion of quite complex issues. (But as facile as it is, it was more detailed than either candidate in the late presidential election.) Perhaps another blogger could provide some good material or links to expand on this theme.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is so pleased to announce that finally Colonel Blimp has gotten back to the basics. He has given us a tie post. Not just any tie post however, but one that gives you the tie; then raises you a watch and some shoes.

Of course, you might want to read Col Blimp’s site for his lucid discussions of British politics, global warming, or even Bunnies in Bondage.

Or you can just be superficial and read for the ties….

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader thought he was going mad. He thought he read a post on Eric’s site that asked what was on the walls of the room where one blogged. Your Maximum Leader thought he read it, but then couldn’t seem to find in on Eric’s site. Then he looked again, and behold here it is.

Your Maximum Leader decided to pull a Jackie Kennedy and take you all on a one-view, one-room, tour of the Villainschloss. This is to say taht he’ll let you get a low-res view of what his office looks like. Here it is.

The wall hangings are (l to r): Kitchener recruiting poster, Winston Churchill photo, linen wall-hanging showing the English Royal Succession from Alfred the Great to Elizabeth II (gift from your Maximum Leader’s friend PH in Hotlanta, GA), Lord Nelson, and an interwar period Royal Navy poster (gift from your Maximum Leader’s college roommate JW). You might also catch a glimse of the the corkboard on which are hung such items as a postcard of Elvis, some old Dilbert cartoons, a collection of drawings by the Villainettes, a Ronald Reagan calendar, Kilgore’s original artwork entitled “Avoid Uncle Earl” (which alas must be partially covered as the Villainettes keep asking why you should avoid Uncle Earl), and a Korean fan (gift from the Big Hominid).

Above the corkboard (and largely unviewable in this photo) is a seal reading “United States of America, War Office.” The seal used to hang in your Maximum Leader’s grandfather’s office in the Pentagon in the late 1940s. When the “War Department” became the “Department of Defense” he asked if he could have the old seal. He was told he could. And from 1949 until his passing in 2003 that seal hung in your Maximum Leader’s grandfather’s workshop bathroom.

In case you were wondering… The desk is Queen Anne Style (cherry). The chair is modern (black leather). The chair does not match the desk because your Maximum Leader requires comfort when blogging. There is a bust of Winston on the desk as well as some speakers and the docking port for the Kodak digital camera. The monitor is a NEC Multisync 2010. The table next to the chair (upon which rests the old HP printer and cable modem) is a desk from your Maximum Leader’s alma mater. Yes, they used to have desks like that in every classroom.

Well… They had desks like that a little before your Maximum Leader’s time. That desk was purchased by Longwood College around 1939. It was in regular use by students until 1959. That particular desk was rescued from a trash heap by a friend of your Maximum Leader’s and used in her office on campus (under a tablecloth) to hold a large fern. She got new office furniture, and your Maximum Leader rescued the desk before it could be thrown onto the trash heap. The desk was in miserable shape. It had been painted and stripped a few times. It had a wretched wood-grain contact paper pasted all over it. And was generally falling apart. But your Maximum Leader kept it anyway. Years later, your Maximum Leader’s sainted father-in-law decided he needed a new project. So he stripped down, repaired, sanded, and refinished the desk. It is better looking now than it was in 1939.

And nowyour Maximum Leader has written a long-ish post about almost nothing. Wow! How easy it was.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader once read that to Vince Lombardi the priorities of his players should be (in decending order): God, their Families, and the Green Bay Packers.

Recently God has been dealing some bad cards to Brett Favre. His dad died. His brother-in-law was killed in an accident. His good friend Reggie White died suddenly. And his wife (and childhood sweetheart) Deanna was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Farve let the team know that he was going to take the off seaso to think about returning to football. If Deanna was doing well, the Packer great (and future Hall of Famer) said he would return to football for his 15th season. According to press reports, Favre to play in ‘05.

This is good news for Packers fans, and good news for the Farve’s. Deanna seems to be recovering well.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader admits that he has never seen the film (and he uses the term in the technical sense only) Van Wilder, but if it puts ideas bad ideas into the heads of America’s youth… Well, America’s youth are a little worse off than he thought.

What idea you ask?

This idea.

Carry on.