Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees that Cairo is being swarmed with locusts and not just any locusts but pink Libyan ones. Can the Nile turning to blood and the death of first born sons of Egypt be far behind?
What’s next? Jews rebuilding the Temple? Dog and Cats living together? It will be mayhem.
Carry on.
I just had a student say to me:
“I’m only late twice a week. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.”
Keith Burgess Jackson has an excellent link to a review of Micheal Walzer’s new book.
(Excursus #1: I thank him for the link, but am distressed at the gratuitous ad hominem attack; such unsupported insults have, of late, become endemic over at Analphilospher. KBJ’s early blog, while still opinionated and partisan, was much more civil in tone. Methinks the economic marketplace of the blogosphere has led the good professor down the primrose path. Blog readers seem to reward intemperate ranting. While I usually hesitate to attribute unspoken motivations to others, KBJ’s early writings show a much more thoughtful individual; my attribution of motives here is actually to give him the benefit of the doubt; he has made a decision to ratchet up the rhetoric to bring in the readers. It appears to work, since he has just been blogrolled by the great Glenn Reynolds.)
At any rate, I was very interested to read the review of Walzer’s book.
I have a copy of Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars. The Minister of Propaganda gave it to me as a gift when we were wee undergraduates.
(Excursus #2: Okay, okay, we admit it: the Villains are bibliophiliac geeks. The Maximum Leader has bookshelves of books offered as tribute by his Minister of Agriculture and the humble mallholder has bookshelves of books granted through the Maximum Leader’s largesse.)
I enjoyed Walzer’s work in college and actually pulled it off the shelf during the run-up to Gulf War II. Walzer is probably the single greatest influence over my understanding of the just war concept. I actually quoted it to the Minister of Propaganda over the phone as we debated the morality of the invasion of Iraq. Based on Walzer’s book, I argued that the war was justified. I took particular pleasure in using a book that Rob gave me to challenge Rob’s contention that pre-emptive wars were inherently immoral.
(Excursus #3: Another cool Rob/Walzer moment was when I took the book of the shelf and a letter fell out of the jacket. It was the original letter that Rob wrote to me back in 1991. It was a wonderful bit of nostalgia for the idealistic kids we once were.)
But Walzer evidently opposed this war. I need to read the book and see how he has modified his original positions. I really think that his criteria for determining the morality of a particular war DO give the green light to GW II. I want to see how he has redefined/reinterpreted the argument.
Amazon Wish List To the Rescue!
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader just loves Sadie. One minute you think she’s all about naughty bits that make your groin wake up and pay attention, the next minute it is quoting Goethe and giving a lucid breakdown of evidenciary standards and the definition of murder.
Your Maximum Leader has long ruminated to himself about the change in the term “malice” as it applies to the law and murder specifically in the example of the Peterson case. Sadie’s salient point here goes like this:
The problem with the definition is that the current definition of malice aforethought has gone far beyond both its common sense and original legal meaning. The resulting conflicts resonate throughout homicide law, warping an entire body of law. One would think that the inclusion of “malice” precludes anything but ill will of the defendant towards his victim, if one thinks of the everyday lay use of the word. Nope. Malice as a legal term of art merely leads one to believe that there was a deliberate intention to kill, whether or not this was precipitated through ill will. Blackstone complicated things with pressing the division towards express and implied malice….but generally, it’s relatively accurate to say that Malice Aforethought is akin to premeditation or deliberate planning of the killings. Yet jurors consistently express confusion about this concept due to semantic struggles.
This is a point your Maximum Leader has thought about before. And he always seems to come back to the problem inherent in a system that relies on untrained (but not always uneducated) jurors to determine how a law is to be applied. The semantic confusion comes when a juror has to have the law clarified for them. Or even worse, confusion arises when a lawyer feels he must clarify the law for a juror or group of jurors. This is when the parsed definitions and convoluted interpretation of terms comes into play. Sadie continues:
Given the inherent difficulty of instructing juries, and the overriding need for courts to tailor their instructions to conform to the law, criminal statutes should be written in easily understood language. If a crime is defined in terms lay jurors can understand, it will be much easierfor courts to give juries understandable instructions that conform to the law.
Bingo! Laws written in easy to understand language. Now, first off your Maximum Leader will speculate that when Blackstone was writing his commentaries the average Briton who would be involved in a jury trial was better educated than is the average American (or Briton) in 2004. A lawyer (or barrister) wouldn’t have had to explain malice to them. They would have known what it meant. But now the law and the state of education have been on divergent paths for about 200 years now.
Lawyers have grown more and more specialized. As legal specialzation has grown, so as the need for practicing lawyers to have their own “parlance.” It makes them sound more important and knowledgable. Alas, these lawyers are now the ones writing the law for the most part. They take their special parlance and write it into the law so as to make it unreadable to a layman.
Recently, your Maximum Leader was reading a book on Richard III and the Buckingham Rebellion. (He can’t remember the exact title - and he can’t find it on Amazon either. Perhaps this is a book he picked up in Britain and he’d have to look on Amzaon.co.uk…) And a particularly interesting part to this book was how Richard, as Duke of Gloucester and “Lord of the North” for Edward IV, was particularly adept at assuring the laws were kept and justice was swift, fair, and public. Richard was wildly popular in the north of England because he was such a able administrator and lord. When Richard became King he was not able to translate his success in the north to success in south largely because his vassals in the south were not as committed to keeping the Kings Justice as Richard was.
Your Maximum Leader brings this up because of a long passage he read dealing with the public announcement of court findings. There was a concern by Richard and his vassals that when a judge made a ruling that it be clear and understandable by the people. This is what is missing from our legal system. Our laws and our legal decisions are written by lawyers and judges for the benefit of lawyers and judges. They should be written more with an eye towards the people for who’s benefit the laws are made.
Carry on.
Since the Humble Smallholder has been fulfilling his minionly duties whilst the other Villains languidly repose, slothlike, in their own filth, delivering no posts ere the last weeks, methinks a promotion would be in order.
Smallholder should be elevated, Rice-like, to a new position of:
status showing sophisticated sycophancy.
Vice-Maximum Leader has a nice ring to it.
I will, of course, accept the post as long as I can bring the Undersecretary of Agriculture with me. (Oops, there I go again violating Biblical Morality…)
Seriously, setting aside alliteration and beautiful women, I share the Maximum Leader’s concern about Rice’s elevation. While she is certainly qualified and tremendously bright, her elevation will further strengthen the hermetic seal surrounding the Commander-in-chief. We have already seen how the narrow funnel of advice that Bush hears has complicated the postwar (read: insurgent) situation in Iraq. Perhaps he should have had more Powells and Shaliskavilis and Zakiras and Pollaks in his inner circle.
UPDATE FROM YOUR MAXIMUM LEADER: Humm… Vice-Maximum Leader, eh? Your Maximum Leader will mull over Vice-Leader, Deputy-Leader, Sous-Leader, Adjunct-Leader, First Minister, Chancellor, Prime Minister, Constable, Prefect, Tribune and Major-Domo. Of course there is always Catamite to fall back on.
And just to clarify, your Maximum Leader doesn’t have any problems with Rice becoming Secretary of State. In fact he’s all for it. Aside from the question of Rice’s temprament being suited to running the State Department, his concern is more losing the moderate voice of Powell. That voice could be replaced elsewhere in the President’s foreign policy team. Perhaps he shouldn’t have entitled the post “Reservations on Rice” but instead called it “Wanted: Different Opinion.”
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was going to save this until Friday, but he just can’t. Remember that Friday (November 19) is “World Toilet Day.” It has been thus declared so by the World Toilet Organization. (Which by the way is conducting the World Toilet Summit, even as we blog, in Beijing. NB to the Poet Laureate: If you tried really hard right now you might be able to catch the last day. Go to the airport now! Hie thee to China! Screw classes!)
Want to read some great news releases? Go to the World Toilet Organization’s press page. Brilliant!
And finally… Your Maximum Leader understands that some of the stuffy bureaucrats at the World Trade Organization might not like another group sharing their initials. But really now, your Maximum Leader thinks the World Toilet Organization is doing much more important work for humanity.
Carry on.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was reading over the news wires today and noticed this headline:
Marines Kill 10 Militants in Fallujah
Hummm… By this time your Maximum Leader would have thought we’d have killed more than ten.
And if you haven’t read the Opinion Journal peice today about killing insurgents not making insurgencies stronger, you should.
Carry on.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been thinking about Condi Rice becoming Secretary of State for a few days. He’s been jotting down little thoughts here and there in a little notebook. The thoughts, he thought, could be strung together into a nice post later this week. But as your Maximum Leader may not have time this week to string thoughts together, it is time to be derivative.
Your Maximum Leader’s train of thought on the Condi Rice appointment is rather close to Bill’s over on INDC Journal. She has great credentials, and certainly understands the issues. But is her natual temprement agressive enough to deal with the “State’ers” AND promote and advance the President’s foreign policy objectives?
As for Condi’s sex… Well, your Maximum Leader thinks that is less of an issue. The countries we are dealing with in the Muslim world (and by this your Maximum Leader means directly dealing with) are led by, for the most part, secular despots with an affection for the west. They are not the problem. The people who would most have a problem with talking with a woman represenative are the ones most likely to be on the receiving end of fire from a Marine or Ranger.
Your Maximum Leader’s concerns are, as he’s stated above, her natural disposition and if it would help/hurt her effectiveness. And one other. Condi is, obviously, close to the President’s and Vice President’s view on how US diplomacy should be managed. With Powell’s departure, should the President be trying to replace the “voice” he had in the Adminstration. This is not to say he would need to appoint a Secretary of State who shared Powell’s views. But should he have someone in his diplomatic/defence bag of tricks who would reflect a more moderate tone? Your Maximum Leader thinks it would be best if he did.
Carry on.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader recently took a “Compatibility Test” on the Rum & Monkey site. Indeed, here is the post with the results.
Since that posting, some other minions have taken the test and your Maximum Leader will now share some results…
The Big Hominid was 65% compatible with your Maximum Leader.
Our lonely francophone minion, VeronaMercutio was 90% compatible with your Maximum Leader. Who by the way posted a wonderful photo that your Maximum Leader ruthlessly stole. Wanna see it? Well you can go to his site, or you can click here.
The Smallholder was 68% compatible with your Maximum Leader.
And the highly esteemed Bill of Bill’s Comments is 75% compatible with your Maximum Leader.
Well, who’da thunk that so many minions would be so compatible with your Maximum Leader. You all get your own individual doffing of your Maximum Leader’s bejeweled floppy hat.
Carry on.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has only recently blogrolled Col. Blimpish’s site. But it has been a site that your Maximum Leader has kept his eyes on for a while.
As so many of you know, your Maximum Leader is an Anglophile of the highest order. And a thoughtful discussion of the British Empire is sure to catch your Maximum Leader’s attention.
Obviously, Col. Blimpish aims to please.
Your Maximum Leader wanted to add to the list of philosophical themes in British Imperialism, but really can’t add to the major themes already listed. But he would suggest to Misspent that “drilling down” on Blimpish’s #2 could be interesting. Your Maximum Leader has read some wonderful first-hand as well as secondary accounts of the work of missionaries in Africa particularly. Fascinating stuff really.
Of course, it also amuses your Maximum Leader that the Episcopalians sent missionaries around the Empire. Episcopalians? Proselytizing? No! Surely not! One would think that you would have to have a certain religious fervor to proselytize. And your Maximum Leader can’t imagine an Episcopalian getting fervent about anything. Well theoretically he can imagine them getting fervent about how poorly the English national team fares in the World Cup; but certainly not getting fervent about anything religious. (It’s that whole Eddie Izzard “Cake or Death!” meme.)
Anyway. Read Blimpish’s bit. Quite good.
Carry on.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is pleased to report that the apple of his blogging eye has returned. She has returned and shows us a photo of her breast adorned with some winged trinkets. Pschaw! If she had wanted breast-adorning trinkets she had to do nothing but ask your Maximum Leader and he would have provided many more. And he might add, many more much classier trinkets. Where did she get those? Some sort of gum-ball contraption at a grocery store? Or did she exploit some Mexican for them.
Unlike the Poet Laureate, who purged the fair Anna from his blogroll; your Maximum Leader couldn’t bear to do it. Yea verily he did drop her farther down the blogroll, but it was all a ploy you see. A ploy to make her post. And it seems to have worked.
Excursus: Hey your Maximum Leader is still holding out hope for Minion & Lackey and The Grand Vizier too. But not for much longer he fears.
Well, your Maximum Leader hopes Anna will make time to post with some regularity. He’s certain that the holidays will provide much material with which she can work.
Carry on.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is putting everyone on notice. He will not be blogging (much or at all) this Thursday and Friday. (November 18 & 19) He will be travelling with Mrs. Villain, and his esteemed Brother and Sister-in-law to Blacksburg, Virginia to participate in the festivities surrounding the Virginia Tech (#15) vs. Maryland football game.
Your Maximum Leader will rely, as always, on his faithful Ministers to pick up the slack.
Carry on.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader gets his fair share, and perhaps more than his fair share (he is Maximum Leader afterall) of spam. Normally your Maximum Leader avoids relating the contents of spam to his loyal minions. And he will continue to avoid discussing the contents of spam here. But if you go over to read Brian’s latest, you’ll be in for a spamalicious treat!
Carry on.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader might yet wind up producing a thoughtful post today at the rate he’s going.
More on morality and Bill Bennett’s gambling. The good Big Hominid has two posts on this Bennett issue. The first one is here. In this post the Poet Laureate cites the oft-forgotten (or at least not-oft-heeded) instruction of Jesus that “He who is without sin may cast the first stone at her [the adulteress].” In the second post, one of the Big Hominid’s readers wrote in about how Bennett is a hypocrite for railing against sinners while being one. That post is here.
While the Big Hominid is absolutely correct in that your Maximum Leader agrees with Bill Bennett when he (Bennett) admitted that he was not acting admirably. There is, at least in your Maximum Leader’s mind, a distinction here that needs to be made.
Bill Bennett was not acting admirably because he was in the position of role model, and he acted in a way that could promote a bad activity in some. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t think there is anything sinful or immoral about gambling in and of itself. Your Maximum Leader (still true to his upbringing) feels that excessive gambling is immoral/sinful/wrong. Excessive in this case being when money is spend on games and not on the necessities of one’s self or family.
For example, there is nothing immoral/wrong with your Maximum Leader dropping $50 a month at his regular poker game. That $50, if lost, is not going to cause the Villainettes, Wee Villain, or Mrs. Villain any hardship. In fact, that $50 is allocated (mentally at least) by your Maximum Leader every month to his poker fund. (Unless your Maximum Leader won, in which case the winnings roll over to the next month.)
If someone can afford to loose $500, $5000, $50,000, or $500,000 a month at gambling without that loss affecting their family or other financial responsibilities there is nothing immoral about that. In Bill Bennett’s case, the money he lost didn’t impoverish him nor did it impose on his family. And none of Bennett’s writings or public pronouncement ever condemned gambling.
The problem is that Bennett could be viewed by many as a role model. A person inclined to follow Bennett’s moral injunctions may assume that since he made no injunction against gambling, it must be okay. egardless of how it might negatively affect one’s life. Furthermore, a person who might not have the means to afford to gamble may view Bennett’s behaviour (once it was revealed) and assume that it was/is okay for them to gamble away the money they need to live. And that is not the case.
So while your Maximum Leader will say that Bil Bennett may not have given careful thought to his leisure time activities from the perspective of “I’m Bill Bennett - role model to the masses.” he certainly didn’t taint himself so as to be unable to continue to speak on moral issues as he had before. Frankly, to your Maximum Leader’s knowledge, he still doesn’t condemn gambling or talk about it. (Although your Maximum Leader seems to remember something stating that Bennett has sworn it off now.)
Your Maximum Leader still isn’t sure how Bennett was acting immorally by gambling.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader hasn’t been doing his villainous best to provide you, his loyal minions, with the finest cutting-edge commentary and opinion over the past few days.
And this post will not change that trend. But, your Maximum Leader did want to take a moment to direct his philosophically minded minions to a Christian Science Monitor article entitled, How Homer Simpson can enrich philosophy class.
Your Maimum Leader and his Poet Laureate have talked quite a bit (and perhaps exchanged books) related to the Simpsons and philosophy, or the Matrix and philosophy, etc. And your Maximum Leader will say that he is generally in favour of any attempt by academics to utilize pop-culture examples as a method of stimulating serious discussion. Where the use of pop-culture examples break down is when the examples themselves become the focus of the discussion and not the philosophical concept behind the example.
Your Maximum Leader wonders if Keith Burgess-Jackson uses pop-culture examples in his classes? Hummm… Perhaps it is worth an e-mail to find out.
Carry on.
Update: After reviewing his library some, your Maximum Leader has remembered the two books relating the Simpsons to philosophy about which the Big Homind and he were speaking. They are “The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh of Homer” and “The Gospel According to The Simpsons.” They are well worth your time to read.
