Its obvious that you REALLY like giant battle monsters MoP. But I will take any post by you as its better than nuthin’.

I can’t say I have been too prolific either. The two kids thing has me bunkered down and leaves very little time for serious posting. Since I am not as high speed as the rest of you, it can take an hour to write, research, and edit a post that can almost stand up to the withering scrutiny that it will undoubtedly suffer.

Smallholder and the ML make it look so easy.

back to the trenches

PS
does anyone else have trouble with the blogger dashboard from time to time? IT was giving me headaches last night and I finally said screw it.

I respond to the Foreign Minister’s inquiries as to my whereabouts with the following:

Nonsensical, perhaps, but nonetheless thought-provoking . . . Giant Battle Monsters is my favorite web game ever. Thank you for the link, Maximum Leader, even if you are merely a giant ant with hydrophobia!

And yes, I will be at the farm the second weekend of July. Bring the boot.

Believe.

I have to ask if you are posting from some computer in the great white north “eh”? For a while I thought you might have been one of the masses that had sworn to leave the country after November.

Regardless, welcome back you giant squid.

Are the rumors true about you making an appearance this summer at the farm?

Back to the trenches

Since Smallholder never submitted himself as a Giant Battle Monster, I did it for him:

I was seriously hoping he’d be a “Prehistoric Fungus,” but “Giant Bee” is also appropriately lame.

heh heh heh

Believe.

As I also commented at Fistful of Fortnights, I will gladlyoffer false testimony to the fact that Smallholder is a metrosexual. Sadie just has to ask nicely.

In fact, he’s been one since the 5th grade. He always admired Luke Skywalker’s flowing, golden mane and skirt-like tunic when we were playing ‘Star Wars.’ A guy can change his hair regimen, but it doesn’t change his nature.

Believe.

While his overall thesis may have merit, Karl Rove (as the posted article points out) is still selective in his choice of examples, remembering and applying only the ‘facts’ that serve his agenda. Karl Rove is still a liar.

Bush, too. Winning didn’t change that.

Believe.

Sadie makes a wild, unsubstantiated charge.

The idea of your humble Smallholder being metrosexual will surely bring tears to the eyes of the other ministers.

Metrosexuals are famously fussy about their hair. My hair-care regimine is the shampoo, shake, and go to work. Heck, if Mrs. Smallholder would let me I’d just keep my head shaved so their would be maintenance at all*.

Sadie piles the calumny higher, implying that I hold myself above pop-culture.

As our loyal readers know, I’m ALL ABOUT pop culture.

As long as the pop culture is late eighties with a heavy flavoring of Monty Python.

Perhaps Sadie is spinning these reckless charges because I evicted her from the barn to make way for the pigs.

* Mrs. Smallholder, in her typical caring way, explains that I can’t get away with baldness like Jordan because my “head is oddly shaped.”

Someone please resuscitate the Minister of Propaganda, who has just had an aneurism.

But I’m serious.

Karl Rove’s analysis of media bias is spot on. It’s not liberal bias, it’s oppositional thinking.

From the Washington Post:

Rove’s Reading: Not So Liberal as Leery
By Dana MilbankWednesday, April 20, 2005; Page A04
CHESTERTOWN, Md., April 18 — Karl Rove was out of his element. He left the security of his West Wing office and the Republican fundraising circuit to face an audience of smart-alecky students on a college campus — a liberal arts college, no less — here in this reliably blue state. A show of hands found two-thirds of the audience opposed President Bush’s plans for Social Security.
What lured Bush’s most trusted adviser to this locale was an irresistible invitation: a chance to play media critic. For more than an hour, he lectured about everything that is wrong with journalism, and his conclusion may surprise conservatives such as Tom DeLay, who has been complaining in recent days about a “liberal media” smear campaign.
“I’m not sure I’ve talked about the liberal media,” Rove said when a student inquired — a decision he said he made “consciously.” The press is generally liberal, he argued, but “I think it’s less liberal than it is oppositional.”
The argument — similar to the one that former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer made in his recent book — is nuanced, nonpartisan and, to the ears of many journalists, right on target. “Reporters now see their role less as discovering facts and fair-mindedly reporting the truth and more as being put on the earth to afflict the comfortable, to be a constant thorn of those in power, whether they are Republican or Democrat,” Rove said.
His indictment of the media — delivered as part of Washington College’s Harwood Lecture Series, named for the late Washington Post editor and writer Richard Harwood — had four parts: that there’s been an explosion in the number of media outlets; that these outlets have an insatiable demand for content; that these changes create enormous competitive pressure; and that journalists have increasingly adopted an antagonistic attitude toward public officials. Beyond that, Rove argued that the press pays too much attention to polls and “horse-race” politics, and covers governing as if it were a campaign.
“If more people in government knew about the press and more people in the press knew about governing, the world would be a better place to live,” Rove said. “Journalists would perform their craft better if they were more understanding of the realities and complexities of running for and serving in public life.”
Offering his critique as a friend of the “indispensable” free press, he argued: “The work journalists do at this time is paradoxically more important than ever, so the need to get it right far more often than they get it wrong is absolutely critical to the function of a free society.”
Rove left himself and the administration blameless for the tense relations between the Bush White House and the press and for the merger between politics and policy. He started out by quibbling with the title of his lecture “Polarized Press: Media and Politics in the Age of Bush.” “It suggests the press is polarized because this is the Age of Bush,” he said. “I disagree. The Age of Bush 43 did not cause the polarization.”
Rove said that “we’d be better off with greater mutual understanding on the parts of both press and government.” But despite Rove’s increased visibility of late, the Bush administration prides itself on keeping journalists in the dark about goings-on inside the White House. Quoting the journalist Joe Klein, Rove said reporters should understand “how easy it is to make mistakes” in government. But the president has bee famously unwilling to acknowledge mistakes.
Similarly, Rove attested that “most people I know on both sides of the aisle actually believe in the positions they take,” and he proposed a rule: “Unless you have clear evidence to the contrary, commentators should answer arguments instead of impugning the motives of those with whom they disagree.” But he did not square that with a White House that routinely challenges the motives of those who question Bush, calling them “partisan” and “petty.”
Rove discussed the media’s well-known tendency toward the negative. “The challenge for the press is to keep a proper degree of skepticism from turning into unremitting hostility and cynicism, and from ignoring good news and progress simply because it might reflect well on those in public office,” he said.
But the case-study he cited — the press’s treatment of Bush’s education plan in 2001 — made the press sound far more cynical than it really was. He blasted the Houston Chronicle and The Post for falsely stating that Bush’s education plan in 2001 was “stalled” and “bogged down” in the Senate — but he didn’t mention that both reports made clear the delay was only a week. He condemned the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for headlining its article after House passage of the bill, “Bush plan to face more challenges.” But the report’s main headline said, “House keeps tests in education bill,” and it began by saying “President Bush’s education reform plan easily weathered a challenge.”
The students were warned in advance by the school’s president to be polite, and the questions on topics ranging from Social Security to the Terri Schiavo case were mild.
At the end of the talk, Rove directed that a cherry pie be given to a reporter for enduring a speech that produced no news. On that, though, he was certainly wrong. There is more to news than polls and horse races.

From the Washington Post:

A Tainted Easter Message
By Colbert I. KingSaturday, March 26, 2005; Page A15
This is an Easter season story with all the makings of an uplifting message, except for one thing: At the end, there is no victory. To be sure, this account contains elements of despair, pain, sacrifice, hope and an unselfish devotion to the powerless. There’s also international intrigue linking a central Pennsylvania community to a distant village in East Africa. But coming at the time of Christianity’s central event, this is, in essence, a tragic tale of ignorance, bigotry and love unreturned.
It begins in southwest Uganda near Mount Rwenzori (Mountains of the Moon) in an area called the Kasese district. Kasese is home to about 520,000 mostly illiterate people. During the war in nearby Congo that ended four years ago, more than 150,000 of Kasese’s residents were displaced; many ended up living in camps.
The insurgents have faded away, only to be replaced by another deadly enemy: HIV-AIDS. Kasese has the highest rate in Uganda, with five people dying of AIDS every week. Would that HIV-AIDS were Kasese’s only danger. Each week, malaria also kills about 20 of its children. The 1996-2001 insurgency as left much of Kasese broken and with pressing needs: schools, dispensaries, homes and morale, all in need of repair. About 70 people who lost their legs to land mines are still living in the area.
All this has become known through a written appeal for help issued by Jackson Nzerebende Tembo, Anglican bishop of the South Rwenzori Diocese, which serves the Kasese district. Bishop Tembo, a native of the area, prayed in his message that “the Lord will bless the Diocese with resources needed” to continue the church’s work with the desolate and forlorn people of his community.
The bishop’s desperate call for help was heard and answered by the Anglican Communion on the other side of the Atlantic: the Episcopal Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, headquartered in Harrisburg.
The Pennsylvanians pulled together more than $350,000 for Kasese to support HIV-AIDS patients as well as a little extra money for the Bishop Masereka Christian Foundation to help pay for the education of Kasese’s orphans. The Pennsylvania Episcopalians also arranged to send a group of physicians and other medical personnel to the South Rwenzori Diocese this summer.
After a visit to the area by Tom Leaman, who is a physician and professor at Penn State University’s Milton S. Hershey Medical Center and a member of a local Episcopal parish, the diocese of Central Pennsylvania set up a Prayer Friend program in which a diocesan member would select a Ugandan as a prayer partner, keeping that person in daily prayers and regular correspondence. Nearly two dozen members of the Pennsylvanian diocese had entered into such arrangements.
Then, darkness and betrayal.
Last week Bishop Tembo suspended all activities with the Episcopal Diocese of Central Pennsylvania. He withdrew his request for $352,941 to support his HIV-AIDS program, including money for orphans’ education, and he postponed the visit of the medical team. What, pray tell, could have led the bishop to refuse this help for people in need?
In every large organization, there’s always that 5 percent who never get the word. The Anglican Communion is no exception. In a March 8 “Dear Friends” letter, Bishop Tembo said he had just learned the week before that the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania had voted “yes” to the election of openly gay Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. The election, by the way, took place two years ago.
Asserting that the South Rwenzori Diocese “upholds the Holy Scriptures as the true word of God,” and implying that the Pennsylvanian diocese — by supporting a gay bishop — does not, Bishop Tembo proclaimed the two dioceses to be in “theological conflict,” thus leading him to reject all ties to his brothers and sisters in Christ living in and around Harrisburg.
Apparently it matters less to the good Bishop Tembo — who does not have AIDS — that it is the suffering men, women and children in his diocese who may pay with their lives for his action, not the Central Pennsylvania Diocese. What’s more, Bishop Tembo and his wife, Dorothy Nzerebende, are the proud parents of five children who don’t have to fend for themselves. So when he turns down money for the education of orphans, it’s no skin off the teeth of his kids.
Yes, Kasese has only 15 trained physicians to treat more than 500,000 residents. Which, however, is better? Thumbing one’s nose at Episcopalians in the United States or bringing more doctors into the midst of Kasese’s human suffering? Bishop Tembo made it known where he stands.
All this he did in the name of God.
Sadly, Bishop Tembo is being cheered by conservative Episcopalians in this country. Some of them believe that the Episcopal Church of the United States, by consecrating a gay bishop, is, as one of them put it on a conservative Web site, “sending people to hell by the boatload, by presenting a false gospel.” Thus, the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania’s money is tainted.
So here we are this Easter, the day that Bishop Michael Creighton of the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania described in this month’s message as representing “the victory of God’s love and life.” What a ictory. What an Easter moment.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has a few things to say about the subject of Baseball.

First off. He loves the game of Baseball. He will not wax poetic (although he could) about the game and what it means on so many different levels. But he really loves the game. Very few things are as fun as going to a game and enjoying yourself.

That said allow your Maximum Leader to move along.

Last night your Maximum Leader had the pleasure of attending the Boston Red Sox v. Baltimore Orioles game. Those of you who might remember (or care) should know that your Maximum Leader’s esteemed Brother-in-Law is a big Sox fan. (And frankly your Maximum Leader can’t stand Baltimore - not just the Orioles - but the whole city.) We had great seats. In fact they were better than great seats. They were dream seats. If you happened to watch the game on TV you would have seen your Maximum Leader and his Brother-in-Law. We were the 30-something guys with giddy school-girl expressions sitting next to the Red Sox dugout and right behind the Red Sox on-deck circle. RIGHT BEHIND the on deck circle. Once your Maximum Leader thought of asking David Ortiz if he could move a little to the left so that he wouldn’t block your Maximum Leader’s view of the plate.

They were dream seats. Your Maximum Leader’s Bro-in-law got Manny Ramierez’s BP bat before the game began. (Manny handed it right to him.) And later in the game, Johnny Damon knocked a broken bat foul ball towards Edgar Renteria (who was on deck). Renteria picked it up and handed it to us. It was a real treat.

So, your Maximum Leader must admit that last ight’s game was probably the most memorable baseball experience (regular season experience) he’s ever had.

And on the drive home it got him to thinking…

Your Maximum Leader is a National League fan. In so far as he is concerned the National League plays better ball. They put the ball in play. They generate runs by aggressive baserunning. And, of course, they adhere to the rule of “if you play in the field you must bat; and if you bat, you must play in the field.”

Your Maximum Leader became a National League fan many moons ago. As you know, the Washington Senators left DC in 1971. At the time your Maximum Leader was 3 years old. So, if you wanted to see major league baseball and were a DC-area resident between 1971 and 2005 you had to go to Baltimore.

Your Maximum Leader can’t stand Baltimore (is he repeating himself?). So he started to look around for another team to root for. He looked south. And in Richmond, VA you have the Richmond Braves. They are the AAA team for the Atlanta Braves. And by way of extension, your Maximum Leader became a Braves fan.

But in his heart he knew that if Washington DC ever got a baseball team, he would root (root, root) for his home town team.

Well, after many years of following the Braves (roughly 1976-2005) - DC looked as though they would get a baseball team. At first your Maximum Leader thought he might get lucky and have a National League team in DC. But he hoped it would be a non-NL-East team. That way he could still like the Braves without his new DC team being in the same division. (Really now, you just can’t like two teams in the same division. It is impossible.) So your Maximum Leader crossed his fingers and hoped against hope that DC would get a NL Central team or something.

No such luck.

Now the Braves and the Nationals are in the same division. And your Maximum Leader is torn. He still has years and years of affection and fan-dom in his heart for the Braves. But he knows that he will be going to Nationals games regularly and his kids will likely be Nats fans.

But it feels wrong to just up and leave the Braves. (Although rooting for the Nats will be tough - as they are likely to suck for many years. Current standings not withstanding.)

These feelings of inner conflict are not too fun. (And Bud Selig is to blame - of course.)

So your Maximum Leader isn’t sure what he is going to do.

But he will probably start to align himself with the Nationals.

(sigh)

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will allow this next article off the news wire to pass without salacious comment.

Chinese men measure up below the belt.

Carry on.

French Military History

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader knows that Dr. Shackleford is a man of his word.

Part two of the good Dr.’s interview with Susan Hallums is up. The Damned of the West (part 2): Interview With Susan Hallums (cont.).

Check it out.

Carry on.

Americans seem to be shocked, shocked, that the conclave nominated a conservative.

Ummm, 115 of 117 of the voting cardinals were nominated by John Paul II. I wonder if he had a litmus test…

UPDATE FROM YOUR MAXIMUM LEADER: Your Maximum Leader has gotten a laugh out of all this hubub about Benedict XVI being “a conservative.” Hello? Hello? He’s a CATHOLIC. To listen to peope like Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann you’d have thought the conclave would have selected a Unitarian Universalist. Or even worse! An Episcopalian!

Carry on.

Sadie and her colleagues run a continuing feature: “White Trash Wednesdays”

Names are so hurtful. We prefer “agrarian sons of the soil.”

In keeping with recent American jurisprudence, I am retaining newly-minted lawyer Annika to sue Sadie and her ilk for mental distress.