Some “conservatives” are in a bit of a quandry. They oppose illegal immigration because (they claim) that illegal aliens lower wages for hard-workin’ and God-fearin’ Ameruhcans. Then these “conservatives” claim that we shouldn’t raise the minimum wage.

Luckily for the readers of Naked Villainy, your humble Smallholder, while he may be an inbred agrarian, understands economics.

I have argued that illegal immigrants don’t actually harm hard-working Americans. Hard-working Americans are working. For better wages than illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are doing jobs that would not exist if their employers had to hire less-motivated native-born slackers.

Perhaps some of you think I am a numbskull for arguing this. If so, it behooves you to explain why dairy farmers are hiring immigrants (in many cases illegal immigrants) to milk their cows. The USD statistics bear this out. My conversations with dairy farmers reflect this as well.

It turns out that the demand for illegal workers isn’t just in agriculture. Evidently the going rate for illegal day laborers in Houston is FOURTEEN dollars an hour. Fourteen dollars an hour paid for being willing to work. I’m not crying for an American who doesn’t have the skills to outcompete someone who doesn’t speak English. Folks who complain about the injustice of the labor market should go milk cows or get a construction job in Houston (dang, look at ‘ol Smallholder bein’ harsh).

It strikes me that a true conservative should be in favor of letting the market work - with both the minimum wage and illegals in the workforce. At least on a purely economic basis - I can see that it is possible to favor the marketplace for wage-setting AND oppose illegal immigration on cultural preservation grounds - but on an economic level, I don’t see a rational argument.

If any of our dear readers suspects that your Libertarian Smallholder is a numbskull, please explain how artificially raising wages can be bad (minimum wage) and good (cracking down on chicken plant workers) at the same time.

UPDATE: It appears that the link above to Mr. Dondero’s website may be ill-considered. Dondero may (or may not) be an uncivil moonbat. I suspected that he was a pompous fellow (he taglines his own blog entry with: Note - Eric Dondero is fluent in Spanish and speaks about 10 to 15 other languages. He has been a Mulitlingual Interpreter in Houston for 10 years, and has worked for numerous businesses including construction companies and contractors. He is currently a Political Consultant, and CEO of www.mainstreamlibertarian.com” Um, doesn’t he know how many other languages he speaks?), but figured that his evidence was solid. But evidently he hasn’t let the facts get in the way of some of his other internet postings, so perhaps my reliance on his claimed personal observation was unwise.

But the invitation to a “conservative” to economically justify cracking down on illegal immigrants still stands.

In anticipation of quadrupling my grazing land this spring, I purchased a springing heifer and eight steers on Saturday. The springing heifer, which my daughter has named “Cleo,” is a lovely Charolais-Angus cross that will drop her first calf in mid-February. I bought her from Messer Farms, a very impressive operation in Staunton, Virginia. I could have chosen a registered Angus, but like the larger size of the Charolais because she will be able to carry a Holstein calf - I eventually hope to breed up to a dairy operation.

The calves are mixed-breeds. One of them is blind. I took it because they offered to let me have him for a big price break. I may have made a mistake - it will be hard to train him to electric wire. I may have to hamburger him come grazing time in late March.

I’m finally getting comfortable with this whole business thing - I didn’t even blink when I wrote out a check for $4500.

On this, the 72nd anniversary of his birth, I would like to personally thank the King for sacrificing his life to save us all from an evil soul-sucking mummy.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wants to make sure you are all aware that today is the 72nd Birthday of that greatest of all American Icons, Elvis Aaron Presley.

For your reading pleasure…

Elvis-Nixon meeting has fans shook up.

Ah The King and The President… Together again at the Nixon Library.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was making himself up a new playlist in i-Tunes for downloading to his i-Pod.

He realized that the first three songs he added to this particular playlist were “Making Love out of Nothing at All” by Air Supply, “Candyman” by Christina Agulera, and “I’m Still Standing” by Elton John.

Your Maxmium Leader likely should have his “man card” reviewed…

But since he’s already admitted this much… Here is Sir Elton’s video…

Of course, If you were looking for the anti-Elton; it might be Christina Aguilera… Here is Christina performing “Candyman”…

Hell… While he’s at it… Here is Air Supply…

Greetings, loyal minons. Your Maximum Leader can add to his growing list of titles a new one:

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: His Grace Lord The Maximum Leader the Potential of Eschaton End Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title

This is definately a formal party type of title… Not like your Maximum Leader’s pimp name of “Fine Ass M. Ice.”

Thanks to Phoenix for the quiz.

Carry on.

I have friends and relatives who suffer from “Bush derangement.” Readers of Naked Villainy will recall that your humble Smallholder is not a big fan of the Bush adminstration’s profligacy, poor planning, and incapacity to process new information. However, my disagreements are over the best policy. I do think Bush means well - he’s just largely mistaken. In the two areas where I think he actively promotes immoral stances (gays and immigration), I can see him making compromises - in order to carry out his larger vision he needs to get elected, and if he needs to villify two groups for whom he holds no personal dislike in order to get elected, so be it. I don’t like it, but understand that politics works that way.

Peter Wood has a good essay describing the sources of the vitriolic anger of the left. Check it out.

I took the quiz mentioned below and “got” a 22.

I wouldn’t put too much stock in this, however. Some of the questions were rather silly. One asked which branch of government you trust the least. There was no option for not trusting any of them. There was also a question of who you trust more - pro ball players or team owners. Agian, no option for “A pox on both of their houses.”

One of the questions asked if the breakdown of the family was the greatest challenge facing the nation. I said yes, but couldn’t go “squishy” with the answer and respond that goverment ought not to get involved, gays aren’t hurting the family, and my fear that there is no good way to prop up the family in the face of rampant consumerism. Ah well.

A good weekend to everyone.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader just took a political quiz over that he saw over at Rachel’s site.

She is a 31. Your Maximum Leader is a 35.

A week or so ago, your Maximum Leader was Saint Benedict; now he is Bob Dole.

Carry on.

The mimimum wage should not be raised.

Raising the minimum wage will not help the poor - most workers already make more than the minimum wage. But the minimum wage is by definition inflationary - so the people who are at the bottom of the pay scale will see their dollars truncated; their buying power will actually decrease.

Will’s citation of high school drop-out rates is another example of how the poor will be harmed by raising the minimum wage.

Finally, perhaps the greatest problem of the American underclass is that our society does not allow the natural consequences of a poor work ethics to operate.

The comments about Will’s article are interesting. No one seems to be disputing his evidence: They simply say “nuh-uh!”

Of particular interest are the people who say that Will should work for minimum wage. They illustrate the fact that they miss the point. Will’s pay is already set by the market. His skill and education have allowed him to command a high salary. Hard-working people, simply put, do not make minimum wage.

Nor are they displaced by illegal immigrants - another canard advanced by the innumerate detractors in the Post comment section.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader loves e-mail from his minions. A loyal minion drew your Maximum Leader’s attention to a piece on the news wire that he might have otherwise missed.

Scientists may have found Medici murder.

Scientists have concluded tests on bones and tissues recovered from the Medici Chapel in Florence from the grave of Grand Duke Francesco de’ Medici. Some of the results lead these scientists and forensic examiners to believe that Francesco was poisoned (along with second wife Bianca). The likely suspect is Ferdinando de’ Medici, Francesco’s brother.

The Medici’s weren’t above poisoning their opponents. But from what your Maximum Leader knows of Francesco (which isn’t all that much compared to his knowledge of Lorenzo the Magnificent or Cosimo), it seems odd that a man who had others poisoned wouldn’t take better precautions against his own poisoning.

Excursus: When you think of Renaissance princes poisoning their enemies, isn’t the first name to pop into your mind Lucrezia Borgia? She admittedly wasn’t a prince, but she was certainly used by her father and brother (both princes of sorts - temporal and spiritual) as a pawn in their affairs. Your Maximum Leader remember reading accounts - now seriously questioned - about Lucrezia poisoning her husband so that she would be available for a new marriage alliance. He also seems to remember reading something recently that claims “new evidence” shows that Lucrezia was just a tormented girl, used as a pawn by her family, and all sorts of horrible rumours (of incest and murder) were attached to her because of the horrid male patriarchy thingie.

Anyhoo…

Your Maximum Leader hopes to learn more about Francesco as he ploughs through a Christmas book on that storied family by Christopher Hibbert.

Carry on.

Mrs. Smallholder will deliver the third wee Smallholder in two weeks. We have girls’ names, but have not been able to settle on a boy’s name.

Mrs. Smallholder won’t go for Alexander Hamilton Smallholder, Charles Sumner Smallholder, or Ernie Pyle Smallholder.

Does anyone have any good boy name suggestions?

Via the smart boys over at Volokh.

General Shalikashvili just wrote an op-ed piece saying that gays should be allowed to serve openly. Amen to that.

TWO weeks ago, President Bush called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces. As our leaders consider various options for carrying out Mr. Bush‚Äö?Ñ?¥s vision, one issue likely to generate fierce debate is ‚Äö?Ñ??don‚Äö?Ñ?¥t ask, don‚Äö?Ñ?¥t tell,‚Äö?Ñ?? the policy that bars openly gay service members from the military. Indeed, leaders in the new Congress are planning to re-introduce a bill to repeal the policy next year.

As was the case in 1993 ‚Äö?Ñ?Æ the last time the American people thoroughly debated the question of whether openly gay men and lesbians should serve in the military ‚Äö?Ñ?Æ the issue will give rise to passionate feelings on both sides. The debate must be conducted with sensitivity, but it must also consider the evidence that has emerged over the last 14 years.

When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.

In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as ‚Äö?Ñ??don‚Äö?Ñ?¥t ask, don‚Äö?Ñ?¥t tell‚Äö?Ñ?? was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve.

The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has.

Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.

This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.

By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation‚Äö?Ñ?¥s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.

The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell fiasco was a bellwether for the Clinton administration. He had a chance to be Trumanesque: “Yo, generals! Let the blacks/gays serve or resign! I’m the CinC.” Instead Clinton weaseled and gave us a principle-free compromise that didn’t make anyone happy.

I’m sure the culture warriors will get all escited about this, but I’m with Dreher (see below): The cult of consumerism that says that families NEED two jobs so they can buy Hummers and plasma-screens is much more threatening than gays wanting to tie the knot or serve in the military. And the fact that a third of American children are born outside of wedlock is much more obnoxious than a couple of Bonesmen shacking up.

Just sayin’.

On a lighter note, my recent sojourn in the sunny state of Florida left me in a state of enforced idleness for a week and a half.

And Santa brought me goodies.

One of the best was Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Cons. Although my principles aren’t first and foremost a result of my belief system, I found that Dreher’s views quite attractive. Dreher believes that conservatives have allowed many of their core beliefs to be overshadowed by the cult of capitalism. Your humble Smallholder likes to paraphrase the great Winston Churchill when he explains his humble economic beliefs: “Capitalism is the worst form of economics… except for all the others.”

Capitalism works, my friends. I would ask our socialist readers (do we have any?) one simple question: “How’s that workin’ out?”

Capitalism has some serious rough edges.

Dreher, more eloquently than I, says that we need to remember that capitalism is a means to an end - a good society - and not an end in itself. When capitalism threatens that good society (Dreher is particularly concerned about its impact on society’s bedrock institution - the family), we have to be willing to modify or redirect the market. Dreher doesn’t talk specifics, but my newfound appreciation of the way much of government’s intervention is counterproductive makes me leart of unintended consequences. I am fine - in principle - with limiting the market. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Much of what passes for “pro-environment/pro-farmer” agricultural regulation (market meddling) is neither pro-environment or pro-farmer. Most of our subsidy system is designed to protect the monopolies of the likes of Archer-Daniels Midlands. Government meddling with the market with the social welfare system hasn’t worked out so well either.

Dreher is by no means a liberal, but I fear that his fine principles are also in danger of forgetting the law of unintended consequences. If the camel’s nose gets under the tent, how do we prevent lobbyists and lawyers from tweaking legislation so that it helps the existing economic hegemons?

I’m with Dreher when we talk about some of the pernicious impacts of capitalism. Unfortunately, he doesn’t convince me that direct intervention will move us closer to the ideal of a good society.

That said, when he points out how existing governmental meddling, I’ve got his back. I’m all for cutting those pro-ADM “agricultural” subsidies so that the market will be more favorable to organic small farmers. If you want to know why some of us grow our own meat, read Dreher’s portrayals of small farmer stewardship.

I read two other books - Heinlein’s Time Enough For Love and a terraforming book. Heilein’s libertarian screed is much better than Rand’s. I never was able to work my way through Atlas Shrugged, but Heinlein’s political jeremiad kept me reading. Terraforming Harelquin’s Moon left me going “eh.” There were some interesting parts, but overall I wouldn’t call it Niven’s best work.

In a more serious vein, I recommend “Misquoting Jesus.” Give it to your best fundamentalist friend. Ehrman’s survey of the textual detective work and problems of scriprutal transmission is well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and decisively damning of the “If the King James was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me,” “Every jot and tittle” crowd. I now have a more sympathetic view of St. Paul - evidently some of the misogynist stuff in the Epistles are later additions and not original. I think the Big Ho would particularly enjoy this book (thanks for the farming link, by the way).

I have started “The Wisdom of Crowds” and am impressed so far. If my recent spate of posting holds up, I’ll give you my thoughts (for a price comensurate with their value).
The very best gift I received was the Univeristy of Wisconsin’s Beginning Dairy Farmers class. The multi-DVD set has 26 videotaped lectures, along with handouts and powerpoints. While the production value was rather low, the information was solid and I learned a great deal. Heck, I’m even working on putting together a business plan.

My cousin committed suicide two days before Christmas.

To quote Lo Pan, “this pisses me off no end.”

Now, I have never been close to the next generation of the Smallholder family. Honestly, I think I have spoken only a few sentences to this cousin in the last decade - at her dad’s 50th birthday pig roast a few years back. So it is not really a sense of personal loss. I’m sad that she’s gone, but my emotional reaction is much the same as I would have when I read about something bad in the paper.

What pisses me off is that her son is two years old.

Our dear readers know that their humble Smallholder is a firm believer in individual choice. If you decide that life is too painful to continue, I’ll sympathize, I’ll try to convince you otherwise, but when it comes down to it, I believe that you have the right to do what you want with your own life.

Except…

When you become a parent, you are no longer a free agent. Of your own free-will you have entered into an indenture that will last at least 22 years. You have a moral obligation to be there for your child. Once you are a parent you ought not to off yourself.

I call bullshit.