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.

A reader who shall remain anonymous reminds me that not all Bones members are crypto-homosexuals. Some are not as interested in other men as they are in animals.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader spied two articles on the news wires that he felt he’d pithily opine upon.

The first one is this: New York Governor Unveils Agenda to Revive Upstate. From a quick reading of the piece it seems as though newly inaugurated New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, is hoping to encourage development in upstate New York by promising more money to and tax relief for upstate New Yorkers.

Now, allow your Maximum Leader to go on the record and say that he doesn’t like Eliot Spitzer. Something about the man, and everything your Maximum Leader knows about the man, just rubs the wrong way. This piece seems to confirm (reconfirm?) that dislike of Spitzer.

Doesn’t it seem ironic to you all that Governor Spitzer is hoping to get businesses to return to upstate New York by pouring money into various public programs and offering “tax relief.” Funny. He doesn’t seem to have equated his (and his predecessors) actions as Attorney General with why businesses left New York in the first place. Sure a little tax relief is going to help some. More money will help too. But where is this money coming from? People downstate paying more? One supposes that is the source. Of course, with crusading Attorney Generals (in the Eliot Spitzer mode) going after businesses for all manner of preceived illegal behavior, one wonders if tax relief is enough to bring back employers who now rightfully fear doing business in the state.

Also… If you clicked through and read the linked piece, does it seem like Spitzer is getting all the glory? Woo! Eliot Spitzer is going to revitalize upstate New York! Only in passing is it mentioned that Spitzer’s plan is very similar to an earlier plan proposed by New York Republicans. Your Maximum Leader should be glad of the mention at all… Otherwise he might have been deluded into thinking it was all Spitzer’s idea.

The other piece was the cleverly titled: Guiliani campaign strategy is out. This is a clever title because of the pun. The campaign strategy is “out” - as in no longer secret. But it is also “out” - as in “out the window” because everyone who cares now has access to it.

Of course, there doesn’t appear to be much interesting in the document. Except that Guiliani’s people were trying to pry away some big donors who are already supporting McCain. All the other stuff is already out there. Guiliani’s three marriages. His support of gun control and abortion. It is all there. Don’t think that the McCain people ween’t going to be reminding Republican voters about all that stuff.

All in all, your Maximum Leader prefers McCain to Guiliani. He is unsure of what he thinks of Mitt Romney vs McCain/Guiliani. He’ll have to study the Romney record more. As it stands, your Maximum Leader is uncommitted to any candidate of any persuasion now. The only tough hypothetical for him at this point is a McCain vs. Lieberman. But we all know that isn’t going to happen.

On the Democratic side, it will be interesting to see how this all pans out. Your Maximum Leader is ambivilent towards Senator Barack Obama or Governor Richardson of New Mexico. He is disinterested in Governor Vilsack of Iowa. He dislikes Senators Bayh and Feingold. He thinks that Representative Kucinich is laughable. Your Maximum Leader is filed with bile by Senator Clinton. And finally your Maximum Leader would like to see a great chasm open in the earth and swallow up Former Senator Edwards.

Yes loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader dislikes John Edwards more than he dislikes Hilary Clinton. Hard to believe, but true. Clinton has few virtues in your Maximum Leader’s eyes, but one of them is that she doesn’t appear to be a faux-populist. The whole faux-populist thing makes your Maximum Leader want… Well it makes your Maximum Leader wish that a great dark hole would open in the earth and John Edwards would fall into it.

Okay… Your Maximum Leader used the same image twice… The other images in your Maximum Leader’s mind are not suitable for public consumption.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader riddles you this: Suppose you are a native northeasterner who has retired to South Florida, you scrimp and save and buy a trailer on the shore to live our your days in heaven’s waiting room. Then one day a developer comes and offers you (cue Dr. Evil voice) One Million Dollars to sell your trailer on the shore. What do you do?

Well, if you were a resident of of the Briny Breezes trailer park outside Miami this question would be less than a hypothetical. It would be the decision you would have to make.

Frankly, if it were your Maximum Leader he would be inclined to take the cash. As the article goes on to state, the developers goal of building exclusive mansions and luxury hotels on the plot is not a foregone conclusion. There are many zoning and governmental hurdles to building on the land. Of course, if your Maxmium Leader’s reading of just about every Carl Hiaasen novel gives him any blueprint by which to make a prediction; don’t rule out the developers. (NB: The best Hiaasen novel? Tourist Season.)

So, loyal minions, which would it be? Cash or trailer with a view?

Don’t disappoint your Maximum Leader with your answer.

Carry on.

Who’s your hunny bunny?

Merry Christmas and happy new year to all.

Your humble Smallholder doesn’t get to the movies much.

Kids.

You know how it is.

But Mrs. Smallholder and I have managed to catch two over the holidays - The Good Shepherd and Casino Royale.

I have to tell you, some of the action sequences in Casino Royale were just awesome. Woo and hoo. Go spend eight bucks for the action alone. The plot? Not so good. Stupid, actually. Whatever happened to good action flicks that actually have a plot that makes sense? Perhaps one day historians will look back on this and label it the Swordfish era.

The Good Shepherd had some good parts as well, but once again, elements of the plot were lacking. What I found most intriguing was the portrayal of Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale University. The Good Shepherd, ostensibly a movie about the founding of the CIA, takes on an umistakable homoeroticism when the Bonesmen are on the stage. Who knew that an organization that counts Presidents among its ranks could be so thoroughly, thoroughly queer.

Dang, it almost makes me wish I knew someone who had been in the organization so that I could give him crap.

Heh.