Sadie, around whose adoration this blog revolves*, once said that a certain pair of bloggers reminded her of the Crane Brothers. Alas and alack, like the tease she is, she never did fill us in on who was who.

But Sadie has also recently made reference to the great classic TV Show “Saved By the Bell.”

I think “Saved By the Bell” is an interesting analogy to the Minister of Naked Villainy.

I’m the popular, witty, handsome, entirely ungreasy Zack.

The Foreign Minister is the athletic Slater.

The Maximum Leader is Screech, whose pathetic attempts at woo-pitching are a source of great amusement.

And The Minister of Propaganda? He’s one of those whiney girls. I don’t know which. Pick one.

Admit it: You love it when we get catty.

* To all of you English-major types out there who object to the construction of this sentence, I have this to say: Your petty grammar fascism is nonsense, up with which, I will not put.

Some might accuse me of harboring secret grudges against the Minister of Propaganda and the Maximum Leader.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I have nothing but the highest regard for Mike and Rob.

I don’t know how any unbiased observer could even start to think that I found my colleagues to be lacking in any way.

The Minister of Propaganda had perjured himself before Judge Sadie, accusing your manly Smallholder of secret metrosexual tendencies. For the record, my favorite Star Wars action figure was Snaggletooth.

I too have testimony to offer. If Rob’s confession here is not enough to convince prosecuters to launch a case, I will offer my own eyewitness testimony to the Minister of Propaganda’s crime spree.

I just hope I don’t get indicted as a co-conspirator.

Honest, your honor, I just introduced Rob to those girls. I had no idea that they would go break the law.

I was using a shovel
The M L brought in the back hoe!

Back to my trench

In our continuing effort to cure the Maximum Leader of his magical thinking about the origin of homosexuality, there is an article in the Post today about the new research showing that gay men’s brains have different chemical proccesses than straight men’s brains.

Of course, our magically-thinking friends will just claim that those guys just “choose” to have different brain chemistry.

The deviants.

Opress them!

(In the name of God, of course)

UPDATE FROM YOUR MAXIMUM LEADER: Nice of you to post a link. Do you think your Maximum Leader will just take your word for it?

Here is the question. If genetic disposition (having one or more “bad genes”) can be shown to directly correlate to behaviour and one cannot act against their genetic disposition; then what is the role of society in punishing people who commit crimes and can be shown to have “bad genes” which are the root cause of the behaviour?

The Maximum Leader (disingenuously) notes that there was an unexpected increase in revenue in April. He uses this to argue that we are on the right side of the Laffer curve: If revenue increases as the result of tax cuts, then this would indeed prove the Maximum Leader’s point.

But the Maximum Leader, perhaps cutting and pasting too quickly, did not read the text of the Postr article he posted (Heh. Posted a post article. Heh.) Cut and pasted* from the Maximum Leader’s own post is the following:

April, however, turned out to be a far better month than anticipated. Taxpayers
were confronted with unexpected tax bills, many from capital gains and the
alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system designed to hit the rich
but that is increasingly pinching the middle class.

Huh.

So, in actuality, taxes were increased on some households.

And revenue went up.

Oh, Maximum Leader! Your humble Minister of Agriculture is so confused! If taxes went up and revenue went up, that means that we are on what side of the Laffer curve?

NB: Don’t expect a reply from our Maximum Leader, who is congenitally incapable of admitting error. Otherwise, one couldn’t argue for total infallibility. I mean, look at the Papacy. First you start apologizing for the crusades, and next thing you know, American Catholics start supporting Margaret Sanger.

* Actually not cut and pasted but laboriously hand-copied because of the medievel coding of this site. Please, Sadie, rescue us from the obnoxious inability to cut and paste into or out of Naked Villainy. For the love of God I beseech thee!
(more…)

By a true master of the art, no less. I’m honored.

Believe.

UPDATE FROM YOUR MAXIMUM LEADER: You know I only do it because I hold you in such high regard. Well… That and my love of reading my own writing…

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader had planned on writing more yesterday. But he has a persistent alergy problem which has been making him very tired. Well, probably the hacking and coughing all night which prevents him from sleeping is really making him tired… Anyho…

The Foreign Minister makes a feeble attempt to shovel the Minister of Propaganda’s posts further down the page. In this post your Maximum Leader will show you how you do it…

Speaking of speech…

The Minister of Propaganda is making some great leaps of logic in his “Bush hates free speech” posts. Your Maximum Leader re-read the Salon article. (Excursus: Allow your Maximum Leader to say that he did something (twice) he normally doesn’t do. Namely register for a silly one day pass at Salon. That drives him nuts. He hates it he does…) It seems quite alarmist for the M of P to conclude that the President hates free speech (at least that speech that is critical of him) thanks to the experience of two people who were “disinvited” to a “town hall meeting” by a nameless local party operative who happened to be wearing an earpiece. The White House press office an the Secret Service both don’t know what the person with the earpiece was doing. And the person with the earpiece does not appear to be acting on some sort of major policy directive to keep people with Kerry bumper stickers out of Presidential events. This occurance certainly doesn’t rise to the level of “Nixonian” power abuse. Though if one is already predisposed towards thinking the worst about George W. Bush, this story fits right in with that mentality. Your Maximum Leader has problems, however, extrapolating the experience of the article author up to the level of George W. Bush hates free speech.

Now, in fairness to the M of P, your Maximum Leader will say that it is not good form to deny invited people access to Presidential events which are paid for at taxpayer expense. But your Maximum Leader will not go so far as to say you have to invite just anyone to a Presidential event.

Your Maximum Leader doesn’t believe it is incumbent on any President to invite people of dissimilar political persuasions to events. On the other hand, your Maximum Leader does think it is a sortsighted policy decision to insulate the President from different points of view. And your Maximum Leader will admit that President Bush does give the appearance of being insulated from other points of view. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t actually believe that President Bush is unaware of points of view other than his own. Indeed, your Maximum Leader is sure that the President is well aware of differing opinions. He just doesn’t give them much credence and does what he believes. If you disagree with his beliefs, then his actions seem particularly dispicable and badly motivated. Your Maximum Leader agrees with Bush policy stances probably 60% (or more) of the time. But where he disagrees with the President’s policy he doesn’t attribute the disagreement to malificent motives.

NB: Remember! In the M.W.O. there will be no right to free speech. You might actually have the de facto ability to speak freely, but don’t think it will be guaranteed. Indeed, it will be the inability of the Smallholder to keep quiet that will likely make him an early purge target. The M of P on the other hand will accept bribes to live a licensious life at state expense and will hold his tounge. And if the M of P can’t hold his tounge… Well then he’ll have to be purged too. Sad but true.

Now on to the third topic…

Did you miss it my minions? Did you miss the positive news? It was last week when it was reported. Your Maximum Leader waited and waited to see if Smallholder would notice it. But he didn’t. Smallholder isn’t attuned enough with the spiritual to feel the spirit of Arthur Laffer laughing. Why was Laffer laughing?

Because tax receipts unexpectedly increased. Here are salient portions of the article from last week’s Washington Post.

Tax Receipts Exceed Treasury Predictions
By Jonathan Weisman

After three years of rising federal budget deficits, a surge of April tax receipts brought unexpected good news to fiscal policymakers — the tide of government red ink appears to be receding.

The Treasury Department this week reported there would be a $54 billion swing from projected deficit to surplus in the April-to-June quarter, after an unanticipated gush of tax payments poured into the Treasury before the April 15 deadline. That prompted private forecasters to lower their deficit projections for the fiscal year that ends in September.

Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived. Indeed, after a four-year absence, the Treasury Department announced yesterday it is considering reissuing its 30-year Treasury bond to help finance long-term government debt, jolting the bond markets and pushing down the price of existing 30-year securities.

But in the short term, many forecasters said the budget deficit
appears to have crested.

“I think it has turned the corner,” said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & oor’s, the credit rating agency. “My guess is 2004 will have been the worst year.”

…

In January, Bush administration officials projected that the streak would continue, with a deficit of $427 billion for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. But that estimate was widely regarded as inflated and many forecasters believed the total would be more like $400 billion.

April, however, turned out to be a far better month than anticipated. Taxpayers were confronted with unexpected tax bills, many from capital gains and the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system designed to hit the rich but that is increasingly pinching the middle class. The Treasury announced this week that it will repay $42 billion in federal debt in the third April-to-June quarter, instead of borrowing $12 billion.

Wall Street analysts reduced their deficit forecasts this week, from around $400 billion to around $370 billion. In nominal dollar terms, that would still be the third-highest deficit on record. Even measured against the size of the economy, “it’s still a high number,” said Brian Bethune, director of financial economics at Global Insight Inc., a Massachusetts forecasting firm. “It needs to come down.”

One factor should help in the short term: Seven months into the fiscal year, Congress is only now passing the $82 billion emergency war spending bill for fiscal 2005, which means that much of the money will be spent in 2006. That should reduce the 2005 deficit while bringing down war costs next year. Wyss said the deficit should continue to fall in 2006 and 2007.

“A month ago, I would have told you the budget numbers were on track for $400 billion. To get an adjustment this quickly would suggest a huge surprise,” said Edward F. McKelvey, an economist and federal budget analyst at Goldman Sachs & Co.

Few economists say the U.S. government is out of the woods. One of the reasons for the turnaround, the alternative minimum tax, should be reduced or eliminated before it starts impinging on economic growth, Bethune said.

…

Treasury officials have long resisted reissuing 30-year bonds, in part, because “nobody wanted to admit the deficits were permanent,” said Wyss, the Standard & Poor’s economist.

Treasury officials disputed that notion during a meeting with reporters yesterday.

“The deficit has nothing to do with it,” said Timothy S. Bitsberger, assistant Treasury secretary for financial markets. “In fact, we think the deficits are coming down.”

Wall Street wasn’t buying it. “If you weren’t borrowing this much, you wouldn’t be doing it,” Wyss said. “No question.”

After four years of rising budget surpluses, the Treasury announced in October 2001 that it would no longer issue the 30-year bond. The decision was intended to lower the cost of government borrowing, since bonds that mature in more than 10 years, known as long bonds, typically offer higher interest rates to attract buyers willing to accept the added risk of such long maturation periods.

With a 2001 forecast of surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion over 10 years, Treasury officials figured they could focus on reducing debt, not adding to it. And eliminating the 30-year bond would push buyers to the 10-year Treasury bond. Since 30-year mortgages are closely tied to the 10-year bond, the added demand for that bond would drive down mortgage rates and help the economy.

But forecasted surpluses turned into huge, forecasted deficits. Since President Bush entered office, the total federal debt — including debt to the public and debt owed the Social Security system — has risen from $5.7 trillion to $7.8 trillion. Long-term interest rates should begin rising in the near term, so the government should lock in interest rates on 30-year bonds soon, Wyss said, before the cost of federal
borrowing begins to rise.

Moreover, aging populations around the world have forced governments — especially in Europe — to shore up pension funds by requiring that they invest in long bonds. Washington is considering similar changes for its private pension systems. That has sent dmand for long bonds skyrocketing, said Neal M. Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse First Boston LLC.

Bush’s proposal to convert part of Social Security to individual investment accounts would also add considerable demand for 30-year bonds if it were to pass, Soss said. A decision on whether to issue 30-year bonds will be announced Aug. 3, Bitsberger said.

So it seems as though there are many reasons to hope for a more promising tomorrow. But the unanswered question is why would tax receipts increase. There was mention of the Alternative Minimum Tax affecting more Americans than ever before. The AMT is the tax that you pay if the government has decided that you make too much money and need to pay taxes above and beyond the regular tax rate for your income level. If more people are paying the AMT that would imply that more people are earning more. And if more people are earning more that would imply that the economy is growing.

But how could both the economy and tax reciepts grow after a tax rate cut? It doesn’t make any sense… Unless… Your tax rate is on the RIGHT SIDE of the Laffer curve.

As your Maximum Leader said back in March… He personally doesn’t believe that the US income tax rates are on the left side of the Laffer curve. He does still believe that much much more needs to be done to curtail spending and bring our financial house under control. But this is a promising sign.

Carry on.

Well if the ML cannot do the burying, I can help out.

This is an interesting article about Hypocrisy and how the song remains the same, just the sides have switch parts.

On another note, looks like the Virginia Governor’s race could be a hot one! It might even make the M of P support a Havard Man!

Whats this? Wrong doing in the Clinton (Sen) Camp? It cannot be!

Relax guys, they are Associated Press articles.

Back to the trenches

North Carolina seems to be having a bit of a hubub concerning the rights of unmarried adults, which prompted me to do a little research.

From the website for the American Association of Single People:

Criminal Laws:

Eight states have statutes on the books which make it a crime for an unmarried man and a woman to cohabit together: Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia fall into this category.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have laws which make it a crime for a man and a woman to engage in consensual intercourse in private: Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and D.C. fall into this category.

Twelve states have statutes which make it a crime for an unmarried man and woman to engage in consensual sodomy in private (which is defined as oral or anal sex or both): Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia fal into this category.

Laws prohibiting consensual sodomy have been used to put defendants in prison for consensual heterosexual sex with another adult. Even when juries have found defendants not guilty of rape, on the rationale that the conduct was consensual, they have found defendants guilty of sodomy because the judge had instructed the jury that, unlike rape, consent is not a defense to the crime of sodomy.

A decision by the United States Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas, filed in June 2003 has effectively declared that all of the statutes mentioned above are unconstitutional. Now it will be up to the legislatures in these states to repeal them or for the Attorneys General in these states to declare them invalid and unenforceable. Although these laws are theoretically invalid due to the Supreme Court decision, lawmakers or enforcers in these states must take some action to officially acknowledge that the Supreme Court ruling applies to these laws.

Fun. Discrimination against single people is actually a serious issue, and there’s more reading on the website if you’re interested.

To address the immediate point, however: I think I’m guilty of violating 14 of the 28 statutes listed above. Since all of those statutes are now unconstitutional, I’m rushing to snag the additional 14 credits before the legislatures fix the books. Anyone interested in a road trip, or in providing hospitality to a traveling Minister?

Believe.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader burned himself today. This was caused, as you can imagine, by reading something funny with a full cup of hot tea in his hand.

Go and read this post from our friend Mr. Enoch Soames, Esq: My kind of politician…

If only we had Congressmen like the Honourable Anthony Henley…

Carry on.

I am humbled that our Maximum Leader took time from the plotting of world domination to read the links I suggested. However, in fully reading the article about Bush’s manufactured crowds, he would see that this was not a political event, funded and organized by the Republican party or some 527 group, but a taxpayer-funded event for which the individuals in question had valid tickets. They were denied access because her car had a bumper sticker on it against the war. So the Maximum Leader is prepared to endrse an idea that that none of John Kerry’s supporters are allowed to participate in taxpayer-funded town hall discussions about social security? To participate in Bush’s democracy, I should scrape the bumper stickers from my car and put on a happy face for his appearances? Additionally, the individuals in question were threatened with physical removal by a Republican staffer pretending to be a secret service agent, complete with earpiece and pin. That alone makes me uncomfortable, and ought to be illegal if it isn’t already.

If Bush wants to hold political rallies, he can hold rallies with friendly crowds (I was in Boston for the Democratic National Convention, and I think there are several lines of defense on the issue of the ‘free speech zone’). But Bush does not have the right to stage town hall discussion with taxpayer funds and pass them off as representative of the American people. From the fake white house reporter to the fake medicare ‘news’ reports to the posting of anti-Kerry material on government websites, this president condones the manipulation of the very checks and balances that are supposed to give us a open understanding of what our government does. This isn’t about ’spin:’ this is an abuse of public resources and a disregard for open government not seen since Nixon. This president and the republican party that rallies around him have no respect for free speech, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Bush: worst president ever.

Maximum Leader: a pretty good despot-in-waiting, but you had better get your opinions out there before the M.W.O. really kicks into high gear.

Now I’m off to re-read Sexy Sadie’s advice on oral sex before our Maximum Leader buries this post.

Believe.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader, while he is exhorting you to vote for Princess Ardala over on JohnL’s site, also urges you to vote for a new banner for Rocket Jones: Blog Banner Contest - Time to Vote!

Your Maximum Leader thinks the Bayeux Tapestry logo is really inspired. But the Werner Von Braun one makes him laugh and laugh and laugh.

Go vote.

And because Werner Von Braun got mentioned in a post today….

The lyrics to the great Tom Lerher’s song of the same name.

Come let me sing you of Werner von Braun,
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience.
Call him a Nazi, he won’t even frown,
“Ha, Nazi, Schmazi,” says Werner von Braun.

Don’t say that he’s hypocritical,
Say rather that he’s apolitical.
“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That’s not my department,” says Werner von Braun.

Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
But some think our attitude
Should be one of gratitude,
Like the widows and cripples in old London town,
Who owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun.

You too may be a big hero,
Once you’ve learned to count backwards to zero.
“In German oder English I know how to count down,
Und I’m learning Chinese!” says Werner von Braun.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader asks you to excercise the rights you have as a reader of JohnL’s fabulous site TexasBestGrok. Go there and vote in his latest SciFi Babes poll.

And when you do vote, vote for Princess Ardala. Who is much more of a wanton minx than the wimpy Lt. Saavik.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader actually did click through and read some of the links recently provided by the Minister of Propaganda. Bush is limiting the ability of citizens of the US to speak freely on political issues by not allowing them into his “town hall” meetings? Hardly.

As the Minister of Propaganda surely knows, these people are free to speak their minds on Social Security and any other issue. The issue the M of P seems to want to point out is that President Bush has friendly crowds. Surely that can’t be the only trouble? People whine because hey can’t protest anywhere they want any time they want and before any person they want. Your Maximum Leader seems to remember a cage adorned with razor wire under a highway flyover which was touted by Democrats as the “free speech zone.”

Surely the M of P can’t really be upset by the President’s advance people staging an event to make it look better on television. As your Maximum Leader remembers it, this technique was pioneered by Lyndon Johnson.

The M of P is welcome to point out that the President is speaking before carefully selected crowds. Just as most other Presidents of the television age have. But to say he is curtailing the right of free speech is a little bit of a stretch.

Carry on.