Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is taking time out of his Sunday morning to point out an interesting article in today’s Washington Post.

It’s History That’s Tearing the E.U. Apart

Your Maximum Leader agrees.

Carry on.

Anyone who would call Smallholder a bigot doesn’t know a thing about him. Smallholder is one of the most principled, tolerant and self-challenging people I know. It makes me angry to think that anyone would attack him in that way, even indirectly with a morally arbitrary position like “we’re all bigots.” Get a couple of beers in me and it’s the kind of thing I’d gladly start fisticuffs over.

Separately, Smallholder’s standing on gay parenthood is dead-on correct. There is nothing that homosexual parents are going to do to their kids that is worse than what heterosexual parents have been doing to their kids since the dawn of time.

Of course Smallholder and I have an ongoing catfight to continue (I believe it wasn’t that long ago that he suggest my birth name was “Percy”), but that will have to wait, as I am off to Mexico tomorrow for a wedding and will definitely not be posting again until next week at the earliest.

When I’m sitting on the beach, I’ll think of you all. Promise.

Believe.

I have managed to stir up a little teapot tempest once again.

It all started with Ally’s comment on KBJ calling homosexual couples’ adoption of children through surrogacy “child abuse.” Click through to the comments and note the strong exception I took to this (imagine that!). One of my favorite bloggers, Bill of Bill’s comments has also been weighing in.

For the click-through challenged, here is my response:

The horror! The horror!

Children being given to parents who want them so much to go to the trouble and expense of hiring a surrogate?

Children being given to parents who have a high level of income (demonstrated by their ability to hire a surrogate) and are able to provide for all of their children’s needs financially? They might even be able to pay for “extras” like piano lessons or horseback riding, the child abusers

Children being given to parents who most likely are highly educated, given their ability to earn the salaries that allow them to hire a surrogate? Heaven forfend!

Children being given to mature parents with life experience? Oh no!

KBJ ought to apply some of his vaunted “analytic reasoning” to his own bigotry.

Ally has a secondary post where she takes me to task. I don’t think she’ll mind if I add the text here:

A shaking head to Smallholder…. My dear friend, if the good professor is a bigot, then so are you. And me, for that matter. There are many issues you and I will not change our minds on. We stubbornly hold onto these ideas, even though others would say we should change our minds, according to their logic.
Keith has his opinion based on his own logic. I don’t share his feelings towards gay parents. I do, however, believe that surrogacy is a sick practice, and absolutely offensive. It takes the process and sanctity of
bearing children and makes it into a capitalist venture. Sorry, I don’t have the taste for such crass behavior. I don’t think you or I or Keith are bigots, because we hold to our own logic. Those who hold to no logic and refuse to see reason are bigots, in my mind.

Here are my twin responses:

First of all, there is nothing about which I would not change my mind if given solid evidence. The hallmark of intelligence is being able to integrate new information and build new cognitive structures. If I find that the information I have previously assimilated is factually inaccurate or that new information forces a new interpretation, I will rethink my beliefs.

This sort of flexibility in front of the evidence is often derided as “squishy,” but “hier stehe ich.”

My Christian faith is not generally amenable to reasoned, scientific appeal. (Hence, “faith.”) But my interpretation of what it means to be a good Christian or person is subject to reasoned appeal. In fact, I imagine that there are things that might make me modify my faith - if I turn on CNN and see images of a 600 foot Allah smiting the Jews before moving on to stomp the Pope, it would be severely discomforting. Luckily, I think the odds of that happening are a mite small.

This is not to say that I change my mind willy-nilly. n things I care deeply about, I have some pretty strong reasoning. But I can be swayed.

I won’t use the way I’m rethinking the merit of community college due to Ally and others’ evidence (a process accelerated by an admission officer’s factual information I shared in a previous post), because it wasn’t really an issue about which I have strong feelings.

But I do care about capital punishment and abortion. They are some of the most troublesome moral issues in our society. And, given more information, I have shifted on both. Right now I’m not sure where I stand on either issue; I am still assimilating new knowledge.

But as a brief guide, here are my evolving stands on the death penalty:

1980s: Strongly for. Retribution and deterrent.

Early 1990s: After a philosophy class, began to reject retribution as a permissible state action, but still supported as a deterrent. When shown evidence that the deterrent was minimal due to the frequency of execution, advocated increasing application to reach deterrent levels.

Mid 1990s: Became troubled over the inequities in the legal system, primarily access to competent legal counsel (which also translated into racial disparities). Advocated, partially tongue-in-cheek, killing more rich white guys.

Late 1990s: Became aware of the frequency of judicial error through the work of one of my wife’s former Northwestern professors. Teaching many kids who were incapable of seeing other people as moral agents and could not actually form a perception of future consequences convinced me that many criminals are essentially undeterable. The injustice of ending the life of a man for a crime he did not commit counterbalanced the minimal deterrence of the death penalty, so I began opposing the death penalty.

Today: New evidence has been published arguing that the death penalty is a real deterrent. I will read the book skeptically, but if their methodology is sound, I may rethink my position yet again. While it is wrong to accidentally kill an innocent man, if it saves the life of 100 innocents, I’ll have to think through the difficult moral problem of breaking eggs to make an omelet.

So, to sum up the first point: I will change my positions based on new information that shows my logic chain is faulty. We all ought to. The world would be a better place.

The second quibble I have with Ally’s statement that KBJ bases his anti-homosexual stance on logic. I disagree.

The “logic” that KBJ has used to justify his inherent “gays are icky” knee-jerk reaction are based on faulty premises and weak analogies. Many people of good faith suffer under misconceptions and poor reasoning. As a philosophy professor and as blogger who intends to influence the public debate, KBJ can and ought to be held to a higher standard than the uninformed man on the street.

I have tackled the many of KBJ’s errors in the past; I won’t beat a dead horse. But I’ll give a couple of examples. One premise that KBJ uses to justify deny gays access to the thousands of legal rights conferred by marriage is that marriage is universally solely a child-rearing institution. Anthropologically speaking, t’ain’t so. Marriage has many purposes (love, support, shared labor, status, financial support, cultural safety net, etc.) and some cultures do allow same sex partners. But KBJ doesn’t let that inconvenient fact sway his justification of his feeling that gays are icky.

KBJ also argues that tradition ought to be preserved. But this is a justification, not a core value, as shown by his willingness to overturn tradition when it comes to society’s treatment of our furry little friends. Harm to people is okay if tradition is preserved, but we ought to overturn it to save the lab rat? This is a glaring contradiction, and one for which he ought to be called to account.

An example of weak analogy is KBJ’s likening of allowing gays to marry to letting dogs vote. Several blogosphere commentators tore him up for that one. But KBJ wasn’t really trying to provide a logicalanalogy; he was using what he had to know was poor logic in order to advance the “gays are icky agenda.”

Question whether a philosophy professor would be so intellectually dishonest as to make an argument he knows was poor or factually inaccurate? Witness KBJ’s continued posting of the vegetarian myth that meat=starvation. Once again, logic and truth take a back seat to advancing a faith.

UPDATE: Consistency also takes a back seat in KBJ’s logic. He has often argued that we have a duty to prevent harm to animals because they are moral agents, yet when it comes to humans, he forgets that gays and the Sudanese are moral agents as well. Washing his hands of widespread suffering, he writes of Darfur in a recent post: “I have no obligation to help these people, or even to prevent harm to them.” UPDATE ENDS

This is disappointing because one can make good, logical, consistent arguments to advance KBJ’s positions. Bill’s reasoned questioning of the impact of gay adoption on children is one which I respect. We have seen many studies showing the value of having a father and mother in the family. So we ought to promote childrearing in a household with both a mother and a father. Bill and I can have a reasoned debate. Having agreed on the moral premise that we ought to do what is best for children, we can then discuss if children are actually harmed. I can question the conclusion of whether it was the different genders that was actually measured by the studies or whether the closely correlated variables of parental education, family income, social stability, delayed childrearing, extra attention provided by two parents, etc., were what led to better outcomes for the children. If those variables are causal rather than just associational, than one can argue that allowing gays to adopt is fine; they can provide all of the above. (Though, on Bill’s side of the ledger, I have to confess that the most important variable affecting a child’s academic performance is the educational level of the mother, whether or not she is the primary caregiver in the marriage. Sorry stay at home dads, ’tis true). As we look at the data, Bill and I can have a reasoned, civil debate. It won’t be one about arbitrarily denying rights to people to satisfy prejudice; it will be one about balancing rights of gays and their putative adopted children.

The key here was civility, something that is also lacking when you read the totality of KBJ’s posts about gays. Note how he used quotation marks to mock gay marriage. This isn’t civil, logical persuasion. It’s making fun of icky people. Scroll through his archives - there are plenty of examples of KBJ’s uncivil derisiveness.

It really is possible to disagree with someone else’s position without launching cheap shots or mocking essentail personal characteristics of our ideological foes. Although they have at times passionately and vociferously disagreed with me, I don’t recall Ally, Brian B., Bill, the Maximum Leader or the Minister of Propaganda ever putting quotation marks around Smallholder the “father” or Smallholder the “teacher” or Smallholder the “farmer” or Smallholder the “ecologist.” Okay, maybe Mike and Rob have, but that was always to draw a laugh or give a dig to a friend, never to denigrate my personhood.

Ally defined bigots as “those who hold no logic and see no reason.” I would submit to you that your definition applies completely to KBJ’s position on gays.

And I’m not holding KBJ to an unreasonable standard of my own creation. The Analphilosopher himself sets the standard of analytic reasoning.

So I’ll say it again and be damned:

KBJ ought to apply some of his vaunted “analytic reasoning” to his own bigotry.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is chuckling to himself. Why? The Washington Post was scooped on a story they’ve been waiting to do for 30 years.

How frustrating must that be?

You’ve had a story you’ve been sitting on for 30 years. It is a story that many many people want to read. It is the answer to one of the most interesting political palour games of the 20th Century. You have the story primed to go when the fateful moment comes.

And Vanity Fair (a monthly magazine!) scoops you on your big story.

Heh.

Anyhow. Your Maximum Leader would like to direct you all to a few other opinions on the whole W. Mark Felt = Deep Throat story.

First off (in the place of honour?) is our pal Skippy. (Who we might add removed a pair of magnificent breasts from his masthead to put up his “Canadian Nixon” graphic. We are not sure we approve that aesthetic choice.) Go and read Skippy’s piece. It touches on the contradiction that is Richard Nixon’s legacy. Your Maximum Leader has never really been a Nixon man. Well, to clarify, he’s always been a Nixon Foreign Policy man and a Nixon Anti-Communist man. But he hasn’t been a Nixon Wage-Price Controls, Nixon EPA, Nixon OSHA, or Nixon Affirmative Action man.

You know… Thinking about it… Other than the cover-up and lawbreaking… From a policy perspective do you know who is probably the most Nixonian blogger here at Naked Villainy?

The Smallholder.

Think about it. Rather “conservative” in looking out for our national interests. Hawkish. Willing to strong-arm diplomatically where it is required/in our interests. But at the same time very “progressive” domestically. Seeking to expand the power and influence of government where he believes it will enhance the “common weal.” Neither Nixon or the Smallholder are typical “political” types. Hummm…

Ponder that.

Anyway. Read Skippy’s piece. It is very good.

Even though they were scooped… You should check out the various Washington Post pieces. Some are here, here, and here.

You ought to jaunt over and read Ben Stein’s peice on the American Spectator too. Although Stein engages in a little too much rampant “what if” specuation, the connections are interesting and desering of some thought.

Anyhow… Your Maximum Leader supposes that this wraps up the Watergate coverage. Finally. Woodward and Bernstein can now write their final books on the subject. And we can only hope that we will never have to hear from John Dean or Chuck Colson ever again.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wanted to comment yesterday on the resounding defeat of the proposed EU Constitution by the people of France. But, yesterday was a busy day and it was not to be. So, you get your comments a day late (and perhaps a dollar short as well).

Your Maximum Leader is pleased with the outcome of the vote. (He is even pleased with the government shuffle done by President Chirac. Although it seems unlcear if the new Prime Minister is Dominique de Villepin or just plain Dominique Villepin. BTW, your Maximum Leader will go with Dominique de Villepin.) Indeed it is not clear now what the status of the EU Constitution is since France has become the first to reject the charter. It looks like the Netherlands will reject the constitution by the end of the day.

Your Maximum Leader believes that the French people (and he might add primarially the French people under the age of 60) have caught on that if the plan proposed by the bureaucrats in Brussels moves forward essentially strips member nations of nationhood. The French would become just one more cog in the great machine of Europe. Indeed, the former ancient and historic countries of Europe would become little more than emasculated states in a powerful Federal system. Your Maximum Leader is happy that the French decided that they need to consider their national and cultural identity further before deciding how much power to give to a central government for Europe.

Frankly, France has already thumbed its (gallic) nose at a number of EU requirements (concerning the national debt ceiling and monetary policy to name but two). They had already decided that quasi-socialist France is more important than the concept of the EU. But if they approved the proposed Constitution, and the Constitution was enacted; then the couldn’t reject EU requirements as they have. They would have ceeded real power to Brussels, and could no longer go their own way.

Your Maximum Leader has always thought that the EU as it has developed over the past 10-15 years has been a bad idea. He doesn’t think that the reduction of trade barriers or economic integration of Europe is a bad thing. What is bad is the giving up of sovreignty and national identity to an artifice known as “Europe.”

Europe is not a culturally homogeneous mass. It has widely differing cultures, people, languages, traditions, and values. All these factors make unified government (or cooperative government) a bad idea. Europe circa 2005 is not analagous to the British North American colonies circa 1776. Creating a United States of Europe means destroying the identity of millions and imposing a fake nationality on peoples with proud histories.

Your Maximum Leader hopes that Europe will re-think where it is going. Seriously re-think. And come away with a limited system of cooperation.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees that Woodward and Bernstein are confirming that W. Mark Felt is “Deep Throat.”

Wow! The former Number Two man at the FBI during the Nixon Administration, Felt confirmed for Vanity Fair magazine that he was “Deep Throat.” As loyal minions no doubt know, “Deep Throat” was the annonymous source who fed Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward information that helped the reporters unravel the connections of the Watergate Scandal.

No doubt there will be much made of this admission and confirmation over the next few days.

Your Maximum Leader will make one prediction now. Felt is making this admission now, when he is aged and infirm, to allow his kids to make some money off the admission.

Carry on.

Since it appears that our humble little shop at Nakedvillainy is his prime referrer, shouldn’t he be sending us stuff from our Amazon lists?

Many of my favorite bloggers tend to post in inverse proportion to their current level of happiness. I think that we can all agree that a thwarted, frustrated and bitter Skippy is a boon to the blogosphere. The posting frequency of others (including the Maximum Leader, the Minister of Propaganda, and myself) tends to be tied to the intensity level of their work week.

I hope that Ally’s lack of recent posts over the last couple of weeks is tied to both variables. She has said that she is finishing up on her degree - go thee hence and congratulate her! She has also had other good news as of late, what with moving, new job, etc. I miss her witty insights. I, truth be told, also miss the occasional hammering she gives me.

So I hope altruistically that she is happily existing in the real world outside the blogosphere. And I hope narcissistically that my recent freedom from spanking is not because I have grown boring.

I recently took my post-exam AP US history class on a tour of a state college.

I had lunch with the director of admissions and we talked about the quality of various institutions. During our discussion, he blew me away with a fact. As a scientific thinker who tries to eschew magical thinking, that fact forced me to reconsider and revisit a debate I had with Ally.

Long-time readers will remember my highly controversial post about community colleges. Ally teed off on my hide (as did Minion Molly and Powerfmn). I did back away a bit from my previous incendiary stand, but the shift was a retrenchment rather than a retraction.

But the director of admissions hit me with this fact: Students who transfer to this particular state college with a 3.25 GPA in a community college do as well as upperclassmen as their peers who began their college careers at JMU. This lends serious support to Ally’s position and I’m man enough to admit it.

Of course, as our conversation continued, the director of admissions related this anecdote: His son, once attending that institution and now transferred to William and Mary, Virginia’s finest state college*, had this observation: The professors were more snooty at William and Mary, but he enjoyed college more because, unlike the other state institution, the students at William and Mary continued to talk about class subjects after the end of class. The intellectual curiosity of his peers is much higher at William and Mary.

Heh. So I guess I’m still retrenching rather than retracting. Perhaps I could a corrolary to my previous position that “Excellent students can get a good education despite the average quality of students and professors at their institution.”

34 year-old Smallholder’s reaction to the Minister of Propaganda’s Full Disclosure in 2004:

Man, just reading about what Rob has to think about makes me tired. I’m glad I’m married*.

* Perhaps, a la Ally, “smugly” married.

16 Year Old Smallholder’s response to the Minister of Propaganda’s Full Disclosure, circa 1987:

“Rob is my hero!”

Since I seem to be on the topic of religion lately, I will continue the trend.

A religion is, by definition, something that is held without a reasonable basis. A leap of faith, as you will.

Faith is something you believe, despite the lack of evidence. Faith is not something that can be proven true or false.

Science is something that can be measured and used to make testable predictions. If the measurements and test results run contrary to the theory, than the theory must be set aside and a new one, based on those inconvenient measurements and test results, must be developed.

In a previous post, I condemned Christians who made the poor choice of placing their faith in opposition to science.

People of faith once challenged Pi. But Pi is measurable, testable, and the “theory” of Pi’s nature can be used to make predictions of the circumference of circles. When faith ventured into the realm of science, trying to muscle it aside, it failed. I doubt many of you were taught the biblical measure of Pi to be 3. Most of us learned it was 3.14?ñ to however many decimal places your geekishness demanded.

People of faith once challenged heliocentrism. But, unfortunately for those confused about the interrelationship of faith and science, orbital patterns are measurable, testable, and can be used to make testable predictions. I doubt many of you learned the geocentric theory of the Universe in school. You geekishness level probably predicts whether or not you can talk about orbital eccentricity and elliptical foci, but I’d be willing to bet that you learned that the earth orbits the sun.

People of faith now challenge evolution. Unfortunately for them, and the perception of Christianity as a whole as people generalize from the specific to our entire religion, evolution is measurable, testable, and makes testable predictions. So Kansas or no Kansas, our grandchildren won’t be learning Intelligent Design.

In gracious company, we here at Naked Villainy are blessed to join the Demystifying Divas and the Men’s Club in their weekly Tuesday posts. This week, the responsibility falls to me, and the topic is the when, where, and how of full sexual disclosure.

As a single man (please make note, ladies), I tend to follow two hard and fast rules: first, never lie. It might seem easier at the time, but lying is only going to get you in trouble. It is always better to plead the fifth than to lie: a woman might or might not stop seeing you because of what she imagines you’re doing with other people or have done in the past, but if she finds out you’ve lied about it, she’ll not only stop seeing you but be justified in trashing your name before her friends.

Second, protect yourself and future partners from the lying of others. Protection, protection, protection! Do you trust all of your lover’s ex-lovers? Do you expect all of your future partners to trust your current girlfriend? Look out for your own health and well-being, and be considerate of anyone else you’re might sleep with in the future. It can be tough in a moment of passion, but it’s important you mentally rehearse this rule until even drunkeness cannot obscure it. Additionally, your health care practioner is going to make you feel stupid if you show up every three months and request the same tests.

If you follow these two rules, then sexual disclosure is essentially a non-issue. You can discuss it theoretically, and you can discuss it with the hope of gaining greater trust in a relationship, but disclosure itself is not a necessity.

Nonetheless, the act of disclosure can itself be a positive and relationship-building experience under certain circumstances. However, it’s important that you think about the specifics of what you want to share, and when. Some general guidelines that I follow, for better or worse:

When I Meet a Potential Partner For the First Time, In a Bar Or At a Party
Do Share: I’m a Gemini
Don’t Share: Anything else

When I Sleep With Someone For the First Time, Immediately After Meeting In a Bar Or Following a Date Soon After
Do Share: I’m a Gemini
Don’t Share: Anything else (don’t forget about protection!)

Before I Sleep With Someone For the Second Time
Do Share: I’m seeing other people (not technically required unless asked — again, don’t lie! — but, in the long run, I’m always glad I said it up front)
Don’t Share: Specific details of whom I’m sleeping with

When My Partner Shares Details of Whom She’s Slept With In the Past Or Whom She’s Sleeping With Now
Do Share: The fact that I’ve slept with more people
Don’t Share: Exact numbers or the actual percentage of one-night stands

When Sleeping Together Becomes A Regular Thing
Do Share: What I like and don’t like (and I request the same information in return)
Don’t Share: Which ex-girlfriend ‘educated’ me as to my likes, and which ex-girlfriend did it best

When A Partner Expresses An Interest In, You Know, Something ‘New’

Do Share: “Well, that’s something that I’ve tried before . . . but it’s important that we focus on what you’re comfortable with”
Don’t Share: References

When A Partner Says She’d Like to Invite A Cute Friend For a Threesome
Do Share: Reluctant agreement: careful! This might be a trap
Don’t Share: The fact that it wouldn’t be the first time, and never suggest names

When We Make a Serious and Exclusive Commitment
Do Share: How long it’s been since I last made a serious commitment
Don’t Share: How that commitment ended, or how many people I’ve slept with since that last commitment

When We’re Considering Having Sex Without Protection
Do Share: Any risky behavior, intentional or accidental, I’ve engaged in since my last test (and expect the same information in return)
Don’t Share: Specific details
When I Realize I’m Sleeping With Someone That I Want to Be With For the Rest of My Life (theoretical)

Do Share: Everything. Everything, everything, everything.

Oh, and never share the fact that you blog about your sex life. If you do admit that you blog about your sex life, never reveal the actual URL. If you do, you’ll be editing yourself forever.

Believe.

For more Men’s Club posts check out: Phin and the Wizard. And soon we’ll hear from Puffy.

For for the Demystifying Divas check out: Sadie, Kathy, Christina, and Silk.

Check out this excellent essay by quandro (via Volokh).

The prisoners in Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo are NOT covered by the Geneva Convention. Red-letter law excludes illegal combatants from the Geneva protections.

Nonetheless, widespread torture, abuse, and “accidental” deaths are immoral and counterproductive.

Read the article for a highly supported argument. I find the solution of offering summary tribunals, sentencing the illegal combatants to death (as is international law proscribes), and then offering a commutation of the sentence in return for information. If no information is forthcoming, the sentence can be carried out if full accordance with international law. If information is forthcoming, we get what we want without engaging in torture.

Also scroll down and read the comments. The moral relativism of many commentators - and of many of our blogosphere friends, is astounding. “Well, the terrorists are worse, so whatever we did is okay.” The terrorists are worse. But that does not absolve us of the responsibility of acting ethically. It reminds me of some of my Baltimore City students who, having been weaned on the mother’s milk of anti-Americanism, refused to see the moral dimenstion of World War Two - “America is no better than Nazi Germany because we had concentration camps too…” It frustrated me that they could not see gradations of wrongfulness. The Japanese Internment was a wrongful violation of the rights of American citizens. It ought to be condemned. But to place it in the same moral ballpark as Dachau is abhorrent.

The right side of the political spectrum rightly (pun intended) condemns moral relativism. But the same folks who condemn the “there are no savage and civilizaed societies, only different cultures” claptrap engage in the same intellectual laziness when confronted with examples of American wrong doing.

Sadie and I are flirting over at Cake Eater Chronicles, so go check it out.

Believe.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader figures he’ll spend a little time today giving you all one big link-dump post to keep you going over the long weekend. (Long weekend at least for his American readers. Apologies to the Big Hominid and Col. Blimp.)

But before he does his link dumping, allow him to note that he will not be posting much or at all over the weekend (as is more or less normal). Lots of stuff going on over the weekend. He is going to see Tosca on Saturday. And he will see the Washington Nationals take on the Atlanta Braves on Monday.

Excursus to Opera Loving DC area minions: Your Maximum Leader might have one extra ticket to the matinee performance of Tosca tomorrow. Center Orchestra. Row “R.” If you are interested write your Maximum Leader. Use e-mail on the left side nav bar.

The Nationals v. Braves contest will be a hard one for him. As mentioned before, your Maximum Leader is a baseball fan. And he has pulled for the Braves for a very very long time. But now, he feels there is some civic duty requiring him to root (root, root) for the home team. But he can’t just give up on the Braves after so long. Baseball is playing the role of cruel mistress right now…

Anyway… If you are at the Nats/Braves game on Monday, you’ll likely see your Maximum Leader in a Braves Cap and Hank Aaron jersey. He and Mrs. Villain and the Villainettes will be sitting about three rows off the field down the third base line.

Well, let us move along…

You ought to go over and read some of Brian’s thoughts on his Grandfather and Father on Memorial Day. It is a fine post. Also very good is the post immediately preceeding the Memorial Day post. The one in which Brian comments on a recent report that UK doctors recommend removing sharp pointy knives from kitchens to reduce the number of stabbing deaths. Of course this would also make it difficult to prepare food, thereby requiring Britons to buy processed foods only. Processed foods are also a great boon for the nation. As they can more easily be reheated in a microwave there would be no need for Britons to own ovens. The removal of ovens from British households would reduce both the number of household burns suffered by Britons cooking AND suicides by inhaling gas. Your Maximum Leader can see where this is going…

Although it is a little late (considering the post is a few weeks old) you ought to go and read over the Demosophist’s post about a recent NCTC report on terrorist activity around the globe. The post is much to serious and thought provoking to have your Maximum Leader give some sort of pithy comment here and move along. He hopes to give this item more thought and comment later.

You all should read Skippy’s post on the outcome of the “Nuclear Option” non-event. It is, as is so often the case with Skippy’s poss on politics, very well done. Although your Maximum Leader isn’t too sure about House Republicans paying for supporting the President’s economic policy. The economic forecast seems good. (And growing tax revenues are continuing to prove that we are likely to the right of the “T” point on the Laffer Curve.)

While talking about House Republicans… Your Maximum Leader commends to you a wonderful peice by Alan Abramowitz at Professor Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball site. The article describes how redistricting is not responsible, in Prof. Abramowitz’s opinion, for uncompetitive House races. It was very enlightening.

Thanks to INDC Bill your Maximum Leader sees that Vladimir Putin is not yet privy to the vast conspiracy to keep the world ignorant of alien lifeforms being kept in a freezer by the US Air Force. Of course, it is also disturbing to learn that Vladimir doesn’t partake of “strong drink.” Really now, can you be a Russian and not have a shot or two of vodka every now and again? Your Maximum Leader certainly doesn’t want a man with nuclear launch codes going around in a vodka induced stupor. But not touching the vodka seems very un-Russian. You gotta keep and eye on that Vladimir.

Your Maximum Leader hopes you all didn’t miss the absolutely wonderful essay by Mr. P on Patum Peperium about Jane Austin and the Duke of Wellington. You really ought to go and read it. And while you are over there on Patum Peperium, check out this post from Lord Nelson about Britain he fought to defend 200 years after giving his life at Trafalgar.

Which makes your Maximum Leader wonder if the official celebration of the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar going to be that bad? Well yes it seems it will be THAT bad. Rest assured your Maximum Leader will not be all PC about it.

Did you catch Buckethead’s post over at the Ministry of Minor Perfidy about the Freedom Tower kerfluffle? No? Well here it is. Your Maximum Leader would certainly like to see one of Frank Lloyd Wright’s mega-buildings erected on the World Trade Center site. At first your Maximum Leader wasn’t sure if he fell on the Geeklethal or Buckethead side of their comment thread discussion. Your Maximum Leader, upon reflection, is more in the “we must rebuild bigger and better than before, phallic subtexts be damned” side of the argument. And as an added benefit, we should build a 1 km tall Wright designed building. Assure it was the tallest freestanding structure in the world, then put the world on notice… We’ll bomb out of existance any attempt to build something bigger… Okay. Perhaps that is a bit much… But we could do it…

Your Maximum Leader doesn’t know why, but he really really liked (and even found some humour in) the Velociman’s post on Sulfur.

Did you see the latest from the Beef Council? Your Maximum Leader can only agree with Gordon and nod approvingly. You just don’t know what cooties you could catch from Paris. Probably some very nasty ones.

As always there is plenty of bloggy goodness over at Dr. Rusty’s site. It was the first place where your Maximum Leader read that terrorists in Iraq are now using dogs as suicide bombers. Your Maximum Leader feels sorry for the dogs. He also thinks it probably does show that the number of volunteers for suicide bombings is declining. One hopes this is because of therecent moves by US and Iraqi forces throughout Iraq to crack down on terrorist activity.

Speaking of animals… Did you notice this post over at the Hatemonger’s Quarterly? Your Maximum Leader is sure that the Smallholder will tune into British television with much more regularity now that “Animal Passions” is okay for broadcast.

Your Maximum Leader really liked this post of fiesty Christina’s. One day your Maximum Leader needs to borrow his sainted parents’ condo in New Orleans and go to visit the fiesty one.

Dearest Sadie… Your Maximum Leader’s one unfulfilled wish at the moment involves Jennifer Love Hewitt, Giada De Laurentiis, garlic bread, mounds of pasta with alfredo sauce, and chocolate eclairs with custard filling. PS to Sadie - He sees you’ve put the M of P’s quote on the masthead… Smallholder will be jealous.

That is about it for now. If your Maximum Leader gets a chance, he’ll post his thoughts on “Revenge of the Sith” before too long.

Carry on.