Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader dedicates this post to his good friend P.H. in Atlanta, GA. (Who your Maximum Leader knows reads this site every so often - even if your Maximum Leader’s conservative politics raise her blood pressure to dangerous levels.)

Your Maximum Leader is pleased to see that Saint Elvis is still topping lists. In this case it is the list of the top earning dead celebrities. “E,” as he is known around the Villainschloss, is at the top of the list. He’s the leader of the pack. $40 million last year. Rock on baby!

TCB

Carry on.

Ally over at “Who Moved My Truth” asks what men want.

It is notable that there has NOT been a sequel to that Mel Gibson/Helen Hunt comedy in which the shoe is on the other foot. We were all charmed when Mel got to listen in on feminine internal dialogue. It was funny because it was true. One suspects that listening in on male internal dialogue would be horrifying because it was true.

I don’t think there is a simple answer to Ally’s question.

It depends on age and very much on the guy. I have male friends who don’t seem to move beyond their glands when it comes to evaluating women.

Truth be told, when I was a wee lad I perhaps was not as sophisticated as I am now. I wasn’t looking for a mate when I was 16. Or 20.

Ironically, when pressed by a high school female friend about my ideal woman, I wrote a description along the lines of:

Fiercely intelligent.
Intellectually curious.
Willing to tell me I’m full of crap when I’m full of crap.
Socially adept (so I don’t have to be).
Kind.
Able to light up a room with her smile.

Just before my marriage to Mrs. Smallholder, said friend pulled out my old letter and showed it to me. I had described the Good Sally years before I actually met her.

Now, when I wrote that description at 18, I left out (for politically correct reasons) the idea of physical beauty. I have a type, but am not wedded to it. At the age of 33 I’m willing to admit openly that one ought to attracted to one’s spouse physically.

I have known and know some wonderful women who are just great people and I enjoy their company tremendously, but, were I single, I would not date them because they aren’t pretty. Call me shallow if you will, but if why should one move beyond friendship if there is not a physical spark?

At the age of 33, I would also add some requirements to the list, but I’m not sure how you would determine whether a woman met those requirements pre-marriage.

A good mother.
Patient.
Willing to compromise.
Tolerant.
Hard-working.
Affectionate.

I lucked out. But I’m not sure how you could determine these things prior to cohabitation and parenthood.

All of that said, I would like to return to Ally’s post:

“My roommate and I are having a discussion regarding the difference between what men and women look for in a mate. She is frustrated, as the gentlemen she is currently interested in (and he is interested in her) often talks about mundane things despite the fact they are still getting to know each other. She wonders that he does not ask questions about her - questions about personal subjects, such as the meaning of life and what she wants in life, etc. (These are things she asks him.) He does inquire about her well-being and general topics, but he does not inquire on any deeper, philosophical issues.”

Perhaps Ally’s roommate is being unfair to the poor lad. His failure to ask about her worldview might not be reflective of the fact that he doesn’t consider her life partner material. Perhaps those sort of things don’t matter to him. Not everyone is a navel-gazing philosopher like the folks here at Nakedvillainy. There are plenty of people out there who are good, solid, folks, but just aren’t particularly interested in self-reflection or metaphysics.

Really, pondering the great imponderables isn’t what makes a good mate.

I had a couple of very nice girlfriends who would have married me (one was more vocal about it than the other) way back when. I didn’t want to marry them because they weren’t particularly interested in the meaning of life and could have cared less when the Maximum Leader, The Foreign Minister, Wallstreet, The Minister of Propaganda and the Horseman of Famine debated politics.

Looking back at myself, I’m a bit ashamed of my arrogance. They were great people and would have made good wives. As it turne out, I’m glad that I was immature back then - otherwise I wouldn’t have ended up with the great wife I now have. But the fact that Sally is willing to partake in intellectual discourse doesn’t make here a good wife - other, more mundane traits are what really matter.

I stand ready for flaming and condemnation.

Bill over at Bill’s Comments has been unusually prolific of late.

Go read.

Analphilospher asks an important question:

“How can John Kerry wage an effective war against radical Muslims when he can’t wage an effective presidential campaign?”

The amateur hour aspects of Kerry’s campaign raise serious doubts about his leadership abilities. Don’t tell me that it is not his fault because the real blame lies with his management team. Folks, the ability to pick good advisors and to sort through the chaff of opinions to reach a good decision is a key characteristic of leadership.

Almost no one will argue that the Gipper was an intellectual. But he had the ability to appoint cabinet officers and White House staffers who could translate his vision of America into reality. Whether you love him or hate him, Ronald Wilson Reagan was an incredibly important figure in American history.

Kerry’s inability to discipline and, dare I say it, fire ineffective staffers bodes ill for the effectiveness of a Kerry administration.

The blogosphere as a whole has been trashing the undecided voter. Perhaps the indecision comes not from ignorance but from a legitimate angst over the choices offered in this election. I can see several scenarios where a voter might have thoughtful positions on the issues but still be unwilling to vote for the other side.

A liberal who likes Kerry’s social positions might be very nervous about foreign policy by committee.

A libertarian alarmed by Bush’s demonization of people outside of the mainstream might be concerned that Kerry will take Bush’s wrongheaded health policy and magnify its faults.

A fiscal conservative might be alarmed by Bush’s penchant to spend money like a drunken sailor and the endless sea of deficits on the horizon, but how could he be confident that Kerry would impose fiscal discipline?

Someone who desperately wants to win the war on terrorism might be alarmed at Bush’s handling of postwar Iraq and refusal to adjust a failing policy, but be concerned that Kerry’s naivete about our allies also bodes ill.

Keith Burgess-Jackson is right. Bush ought to be tremendously vulnerable as an incumbent whose economic and foreign policies have resulted in a net loss of jobs (Note to Rusty: Notice that I am talking about actual jobs, NOT unemployment percentages which are also up), and a quagmire of an insurrection. Kerry’s leadership failures have meant that many people who are dissatisfied with Bush’s leadership will STILL VOTE FOR BUSH.

One wonders if the Democratic Party is actually, as an institution, suicidal.

Many of our readers may suspect that I’m pulling a Sullivan, but your humble Smallholder, despite my beliefs that government ought to balance the budget, that progressive tax rates are a societal good, that we ought not to discriminate based on consensual bedroom behavior, and that we should balance economic and environmental issues, has had to do a lot of soul-searching before deciding how to cast my Tuesday ballot.

If Kerry had offered even a smidgen of reassurance on foreign policy, he would have had my vote hands down. As it is, I’m not so much voting for him as I am voting against the incompetence, obstinacy, rigidity, and willful blindness of Bush’s foreign policy team. I do so without much faith in the plan(s) that Kerry has offered to win the war. But at least he might do something different.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is all about caring for his ministers. Even when we don’t agree on political matters, we are always friends.

This link goes out to the Minister of Propaganda who is out there trying to elect John Kerry to the highest office in the land. M of P, you may not be posting here, but we’re still thinking of you. Just in case you missed it: Nude Kate Moss Portrait May Fetch $6.4M at Auction. That auction is Feburary 9 at hristies.

Carry on.

I dearly love the long-suffering Foreign Minister’s better half.

So I post this link with trepidation.

Ally at “Who Moved My Truth” asked what men want.

For the Foreign Minister, I can’t think of a girl who better meets the definition of “Gregfraulein” than Annika.

Scandinavian.

Conservative enough to make Smallholder’s eyes bleed.

Witty.

But, more importantly,

Enthusiastic about Nazi Machine Guns AND plays WW II tactical games.

(Splash!)

(Sounds of Greg swimming the Atlantic Ocean)

(Sigh)

I’m a homewrecker. Forgive me, Mrs. Foreign Minister!

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is nothing if not full of answers. You just ask your questions and he answers. Sometimes, if your name happens to be Molly, you ask questions and your Maximum Leader thinks about them for a while and makes you forget that you asked a question. Then, voila! Your Maximum Leader has an answer.

Alas, poor Molly. This answer is not for you. (But your Maximum Leader knows he still owes you an answer or two.)

This answer is for Ally. Ally before asking her question admonishes her readers to be afraid, be very afraid. Well your Maximum Leader took casual note of the warning and pressed on. Ally’s question is a doozy. Ally writes:

My theory is this: women look for specific things, like professions, hobbies, activities, etc. when looking for a mate. I believe men look for more general characteristics in women - such as, a sense of humor, a good person, easy to get along with….and of course, the physical aspect. A guy could care less if a woman likes scrap-booking or windsurfing, as long as she is a good woman and he can do his sport or hobby in peace.

Ay yai yai! What a theory to have to validate! Your Maximum Leader was going to write something snarky here. (If only to validate the Smallholder’s theory that your Maximum Leader hasn’t been himself lately.) But that little voice that your Maximum Leader is so successful at silencing overcame him and he decided to blog personal for a moment.

Many years ago your Maximum Leader had a theory of his own. Men and Women were ultimately incompatable in almost every way. The goal of a man was to find a woman who could tolerate him, and whom he could tolerate. Then, the man would have to go on with his own friends and the woman her own friends. Their lives would touch only in scenes reminiscent of Charles Foster Kane and Emily Monroe Norton Kane having breakfast.

Well, your Maximum Leader doesn’t hold that theory any longer. Except in cases of men getting trophy wives. Then there this model may be the case, only with a little more craven undercurrent.

Well, your Maximum Leader knew a number of traits he was looking for in a woman when he decided to get serious about looking for one. He wanted a woman who shared his basic political beliefs. A woman who had deeply held spiritual convictions. A woman who would give him space when he needed it. A woman who enjoyed many of the same cultural interests as he did. And a woman who wanted and was able to have children.

As you can see, these are very self-centered wants. As long as any perpective woman and your Maximum Leader met on these points; your Maximum Leader thought things could work out.

For the sake of full disclosure, your Maximum Leader has also always had a thing for dark, curvy, swarthy women. Black hair, olive skin, hips, some bum, more than a handful of boob. Sort of like Salma Hayek. Yuuuummmmyyy. So it would be nice if a woman who met the aforementioned criteria would also be dark and swarthy. But your Maximum Leader matured and realized that of all the traits he was looking for, the purely physical ones were the least important.

And your Maximum Leader is lucky to be able to say that Mrs. Villain does share your Maximum Leader’s political outlook, is deeply spiritual, cultured, loves (and has borne 3) kids, and has both nice boobs and a nice bum. Most importantly, Mrs. Villain gives your Maximum Leader time and space to do things he wants to do. And your Maximum Leader lets her do her thing. She hasn’t tried to change him, nor he her. She communicates her expectations and desires clearly and without subterfuge (most of the time). She has her own interests and hobbies. And except in those areas where our interests overlap, she does her thing and your Maximum Leader does his thing. And we get on famously.

It is interesting. Your Maximum Leader and Mrs. Villain were set up by the Foreign Minister’s lovely (and long suffering) wife. She hesitated to set us up for the longest time. She did so because Mrs. Villain is very willfull and stubborn about a great many things. And your Maximum Leader is stubborn and quite willfull about a great many more things. Mrs. Foreign Minister assumed that we would butt heads all the time and never agree on a thing. But as it turns out, those things that Mrs. Villain is stubborn about don’t bother your Maximum Leader in the least. And vice versa.

So, your Maximum Leader supposes that Ally’s theory is not too far off. Men have a few broad (self-centered) criteria by which thy judge women. If those criteria are met, men believe things can work out. They key is change. In your Maximum Leader’s experience the root cause of relationship distress is one party trying to change the basic nature of the other party. Generally the woman is trying to change the man. Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure why many women feel they have to change a man to conform to their vision of how the man should be. Furthermore, your Maximum Leader doesn’t understand why so many man let women try to change them. Regardless, allow your Maximum Leader to pass along a helpful hint to all women; when it comes to men - what you see is what you get. There ain’t a lot of changing going on.

This is not to say that men don’t change. That is not your Maximum Leader’s point. For example, Mrs. Villain now knows that toilet paper must always come off the roll from front of the roll. And your Maximum Leader now knows that toothpaste tubes must be squeezed randomly along their length for them to work properly. Little things people can, and do, change.

Don’t try to change the big things. If your man keeps his underwear in the top dresser drawer with all his socks; don’t ever try to move them to another drawer. (This is a much bigger thing than most women realize.) If your man plays computer games all night if left alone when you are dating; he will do it after you are married. If your man doesn’t get enthusiastic about scrap-booking or antique shopping when you are dating - but goes along to be nice (and maybe get some play later); don’t expect him to want to help with your scrap-books or go antique shopping after you are married. Just ask a man what he likes to do and he’ll tell you. Note those things down. Don’t try to force him to like what you like.

Think of your relationship in terms of a Venn Diagram. Draw two big interlocking circles. Put your shared interests (honestly) in the overlapping area. Then put your individual interests in your non-overlapping circles. Try to find someone with as many shared interests as possible. But things you don’t share early on, you will not likely share later on. Just live with it.

And that is about all the relationship advice your Maximum Leader can muster up right now.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader just read the latest from Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online. The money quote: “Not our power, but our will, is the target.” Target of Al Qaeda and other terrorists that is. You ought to go and read it if you have not already.

Indeed, you ought to go and read Hanson’s “Carnage & Culture” or “Ripples of Battle.” They are genuinely scholarly works that are readable and thought provoking.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees that JohnL at TexasBestGrok is back and has a new SciFi babes poll. This poll is among women of the Star Trek: The Next Generation Cast. Your Maximum Leader, as the saying goes, doesn’t have a dog in this fight. Although he tends to favour Counselor Troi over the others. Dark hair, olive skin, boobs. Although the whole idea of such a counselor as a senior officer offends your Maximum Leader’s jingoist tendencies. You see your Maximum Leader is much more of the “suck it up and take it” school of counseling. If you’re looking for a shoulder to cry on, your Maximum Leader is probably not your man. That said, Counselor Troi is quite easy on the eye.

A whole argument can be made for Dr. Crusher. If you are going to argue more than just the purely purient aspects of the comparison. But your Maximum Leader will keep his mind in the gutter for this one.

Carry on.

I didn’t see the Lileks reference to the HPI that the Maximum Leader detailed below, but in searching for it, I came across some neat Lovecraftian references. I wonder what Lileks’ non-literary audience made of it? I wonder if the Christian right sent protests to the paper?

At any rate, the Smallholder-in-laws buy a calf in my name every year. It is a very worthy cause - “teach a man to fish” and all that.

Greetings, loyal minons. Your Maximum Leader received a note from a minion to take a look at a Matt Glassman piece on Tech Central Station. In it, Glassman spells out one of the other interesting senarios that are plausible in the case of an Electoral College tie or neither candidate getting a majority vote in the Electoral College.

The senario is that if the election goes to the House of Represenatatives; the House is Consititutionally mandated to consider the top three Electoral vote getters. What happens, says Glassman, if the Electoral count going to be inconclusive and a “faithless Elector” (knowing the House has to consider the top three candidates) casts his ballot for John McCain?

Very interesting. How weird would that be loyal minions. A man who didn’t campaign for president and someone who wouldn’t have a significant number of popular votes being considered for an office he wasn’t looking to occupy (this time around anyway).

The possibilities are nearly endless. What fun.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader shocks you no? What is this? A farm post by a blogger here not called Smallholder?

Not exactly. Your Maximum Leader was over reading the Bleat again today and he saw a link to The Heifer Project. So he clicked through and started to read. Very interesting. Sustainable charity. What a great idea. Take a look and decide if you should give yourself.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader didn’t comment on the recent change to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which now prohibits US soliders from “engaging” prostitutes. It was your Maximum Leader’s understanding that prior to the recent change, if a GI was stationed or otherwise serving in an area/country/other jurisdiction that had legal prostitution; the GI could avail himself of the services of a prostitute.

Now, your Maximum Leader is not an advocate of prostitution as a rule. But his general feeling on the matter are that if some appropriate jursidiction (like a state in the US or a foreign nation - or administrative subset of a foreign nation) wants to have legal prostitution that is fine. If you are inclined to partake, fine. If not, you mayignore it.

So, recently the UCMJ was changed. It is now illegal for our soliders or sailors to hire a prostitute, even in areas where prostitution is legal.

Which brings your Maximum Leader to the impetus for this post. He was over on the Lost Nomad blog and read this interestingly titled post: When Adultery is Better Than Paying a Prostitute.

It seems as though the penalties for hiring a prostitute are more severe than are the penalties for committing adultery with another GI’s spouse. What the hell? That is just wrong. Just on the face of it, it is wrong. But when you stop to think of the potential problems adultery within the ranks can cause it would seem as though consorting (if it is consorting) with a prostitute would be a much less serious offence.

Your Maximum Leader would hope that the Department of Defence would come to its senses in this matter at abolish the prohibition on prostitution. And if not that, at least equalize the punishments for bad behaviour.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is saddened because he missed the eclipse lasst night. Did you all see it? Here are photos.

It was a clear night and the moon shone brightly around 8pm. Periodically (during commerical breaks between innings), your Maximum Leader would go out on to the Villainschloss grounds to look at the moon. Just as the moon was about 1/2 covered in shadow, clouds moved into the area. It stayed cloudy the rest of the night and consequently your Maximum Leader missed the show.

Damn.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was reading over the newswires when he saw the following headline: UN Votes Overwhelmingly Against U.S. Embargo on Cuba.

Why exactly is this news? The UN General Assembly has been casting the same meaningless vote for years. Why does it merit a place at the top of the news wire? Except possibly to show US contempt for the UN… Humm…

Carry on.