I think I’m falling in love with Sadie and her sexy musings.

Wait, is that off topic?

Believe.

Whilst bashing the medeivel mentalities of my coreligionists, I would be remiss not to linkt to Eugene Volokh’s mighty smite of the Family Research Council.

Lynddie England’s plea agreement has been tossed by the military judge because he has concerns about whether she can be guilty if she didn’t know what she was doing was wrong or if she was following orders.

I thought that Nuremburg established following orders was not a defense in a war crimes trial.

Now we are making a lack of a moral sense a defense?

Germany, 1947:

Defendent: When I organized the mass slaying of the Polish peasantry, I was just following orders.

Judge: That is not an acceptable defense.

Defendent: When the Nazis came to power in 1933, they changed the curriculum to teach us that the Slavs were subhuman who were squatting on our lebensraum. So, indoctrinated throughout my high school career, I did not believing that murdering Poles was wrong.

Judge: Well, okay then. You are free to go.

Regular readers know that your Smallholder, unlike the Minister of Propaganda, is not a man given to profanity, but:

Judge Pohl, I call bullshit.

UPDATE FROM YOUR MAXIMUM LEADER: Your Maximum Leader may be misreading this statement from the Smallholder, but he thinks that his good friend’s reading of yesterday’s events is incorrect. It is your Maximum Leader’s understanding that Pvt. England’s plea agreement was tossed by the Judge because in her statement to the court Pvt. England made comments inconsistent with an acknowledgement of guilt. Not because the Judge thought she might not be found guilty in a trial if she “believed” she was not guilty. England stated that she believed that the photos were for a legitimate purpose (training?) and thus she didn’t believe her actions were wrong. You cannot plead guilty to a charge, then say you weren’t really guilty when addressing the court. So as a consequence, the Judge threw out the plea agreement and is moving to an Article 32. Which your Maximum Leader understands to be the equivilent of a grand jury proceeding to indict England and move her towards a full blown trial. A trial which the plea deal was to avoid.

UPDATE: Thanks, Mike. You are right. Please disregard this post. Hopefully ol’ Lynndie is still in for some hefty jail time.

A private employer decides to offer benefits to domestic partners.

But public law requires that the domestic partner pay taxes on the benefits, unlike the spouses of straights who receive exactly the same benefits.

From the Washington Post:

Early in 2004, after nearly two years in a committed relationship, Dan
Jessup added his partner to his health insurance, as his employer, the big Wall
Street firm J.P. Morgan, allows…

But there was shock in store for the 39-year-old worker in Morgan’s
commercial banking division in Indianapolis: His taxes took a big jump…

Under federal law, any portion of an employer-paid insurance premium
that goes for coverage for a domestic partner is treated as taxable income to
the employee. The employee also may not make any payments for partner coverage, such as premiums under a “cafeteria” benefit plan, with pretax
dollars…

…the rules were written into law by Congress…

“A man and a woman who have not officially gotten married are in the
same boat,”…

Opposite-sex couples, of course, have the option of getting married.
Except in Massachusetts, same-sex couples do not. Even if they did, it wouldn’t
help with the tax treatment.

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husban and wife.”

It also stipulates that “spouse” refers “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” The law requires that both these definitions be used “in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress.”

Thus, same-sex couples, no matter what the states do, will remain
unable to get federal-tax-free health insurance for one partner through the
other’s employer. A 1997 study by the General Accounting Office (now known as
the Government Accountability Office) found 1,049 federal laws in which
marital status is a factor. They range from the obvious, such as those
concerning joint tax returns, to the obscure but potentially important for
certain individuals, such as in determining who gets life insurance proceeds
when a federal government worker dies without specifying a
beneficiary.

Equal protection of the laws my heine.

It’s not Christians who are persecuted.

We are doing the persecution (though not all of us agree with it).

I often disagree with Will’s policy presctiptions, but I always enjoy reading his prose. He is a beautiful writer. Today I can whole-heartedly agree with Will - so my pleasure is doubled.

The whininess of my coreligionists has been chafing me of late. When other Christians complain about the persecution of Christians, I always want to answer: “Stopping you from perseucting other people is not persecution.” I for one, have never had one of my church services interrupted by the jack-booted atheist thugs kicking down the doors of the sanctuary.

This persecution complex is especially galling when there are Christians who are persecuted today. You don’t have to go back to the Roman coliseum (lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) - just look at China or the Middle East. Under Sharia, abandoning the true faith is heresy punishable by death - and a Saudi convert is facing the prospect of the ax as we speak.

So when my coreligionists whine about the persecution of not having Principal-led prayer in the public schools, I become a bit indignant. I become indignant when Pat Roberston complains that extending civil rights to gays “persecutes” believers.

Go read Will’s article.

I covered Reagan’s presidency today in class.

Part of my lecture covered the challenge Star Wars posed to the Soviet Union. The USSR’s overmatched scientific community, shackled by ideology, could not compete with the science of a free society. This necessitated a brief exploration of Lysenkoism.

Driving to work this morning, I was mentally rehearsing my class activities and listening to NPR. NPR did a brief spot on the school board hearings in Kansas. A sudden flash hit me: Intelligent Design is American Lysenkoism!

Just as the Soviets denied the genetic basis of evolution - and many other scientfic theories -becase it conflicted with their interpretation of the holy scriptures of Marx and Lenin, many Christians deny evolution entirely because it conflicts with their interpretation of holy scripture.

A school board member said something to the effect that the hearings were necessary so that the public could be exposed to the fact that scientists were covering up the “utter refutation” of Darwin.

It’s time for a show trial, boys! Too bad Gould is dead. He’d make a great televised confession.

Looks like DeLay is going to have a challenger in 2006. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Texas redistricting (120,000 of Congressman Lampson’s former constituents now live in DeLay’s district) proved just decisive enough to remove that asshole from office? Ah, even the thought of it makes me as giddy as an illegally-cheerleading school girl.

Believe.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader always marvels at the stories about people you are able to sometimes stumble across in the blogosphere. They give you hope, inspiration, and sometimes a confidence that there is still something right in the world. This week your Maximum Leader has read two great accounts written by children of their parents. He commends them both to you.

First is Eric’s dad: Straight White Guy: A Gentle Man…

Second is Christina’s mom: Fiesty Repartee: Her Story.

Take a moment and read them.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader would like to bring to your attention another news item in the seemingly unending stream of stories that could be filed under the “legislators doing something stupid instead of the people’s business” category.

Texas Lawmakers OK Cheerleading Ban

What the hell? So if this law passes the Texas Senate and gets signed by Governor Rick Perry; then Texas high school cheerleaders will not be able to do “overly sexual performances” while urging their team on to victory? The State Education Commissioner will over oersight authority in enforcing this law?

Wha? To use an Axis Sully term, your Maximum Leader is gobsmacked.

Did Al Edwards (the author of the legislation) and his supporters who passed the bill suddenly forget that they were young too? Did they forget that if you put a teenaged girl in a cheerleading outfit (that is anything sort of a burqua), give her some pom-poms; then stand her in front of any group of teenaged boys - the boys will definately have overly sexual thoughts going through their mind. You can’t stop it. It is going to happen.

Hell, you put some teenaged girl wearing cheerleader attire in front of any (heterosexual) man of any age and you will illicit at least a fleeting sexual thought.

This is just simply ridiculous. Your Maximum Leader can hardly fathom the puritanical streak that someone must have to even think that this type of legislation is more important than… Well, more important than just about any type of business before the Texas Legislature. Don’t they have a budget they have to write? Don’t they want to reopen the whole redistricting fight again?

No… They want to take away cheerleaders.

Damn them all to hell.

Of course, your Maximum Leader would gladly volunteer to perform any required inspections and oversight on behalf of the State Education Commissioner should this bill become law.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees that there continues to be activity on the whole Tom DeLay/Ethics Investigation matter. To refresh your memory, you might want to re-read your Maximum Leader’s previous post on DeLay’s problems.

(NB: Your Maximum Leader started writing this post a few days ago, but with various other commitments is only now able to wrap it up today.)

Here are some old links for your review (with scoring and pithy commentary from your Maximum Leader):

Republicans have agreed to undo a recent rule change to which Democrats strenuously objected. Many comment that this reversal opens up the door for removing DeLay as now full investigations can begin.

DeLay 0, Democrats 1

But DeLay still seems to be strongly supported. (And supported publically by President Bush too.)

DeLay 1, Democrats 1

And, as your Maximum Leader noted earlier, the ethics charges against DeLay are not problems for DeLay only. Many Representatives in Congress could be brought up on exactly the same charges. Indeed, there are more issues being brought up every day concerning other members (and their staff). Nancy Pelosi (the Democratic Leader in the House) is being called on to answer questions about irregularities in some of her travel. And as we have all started to learn, Congressmen’s travel is often paid for by private groups. Indeed, in a a lenghty article in the Washington Post it seems as though a 1996 trip to the Northern Marianas islands is causing problems for DeLay, DeLay’s staff, as well as Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS).

Push - Score Tied at 1-all.

So where is this getting us?

Well, itis setting up a rather interesting summer of Ethics Committee activity. Frankly, your Maximum Leader isn’t sure why the Republicans even bothered allowing the Ethics Committee to organize. It is, afterall, just another minor part of one branch of government ceasing to function. And, honestly people, is one committee getting no work done really affecting the ability of the House of Representatives from doing its business? Probably not. Indeed, most of the time Congressmen do there darnest to avoid doing the nation’s business by intervening in state matters or private affairs. So if one committee was up-front about not doing any business who would lose out?

What is the harm if the committee didn’t organize for a while? It all depends on the spin my minions. If the Republicans are as adept at spinning and message control as is widely alleged, then they could easily make it all out to be Democratic obstruction. (Which frankly it was.)

Anyho… Back to the summer of investigations. We’ll have a not so interesting summer of investigating Tom DeLay (and others it seems). Why this summer? Well, people are tuning out and going on vacation. News cycles seem less important overall.

Excursus: People tuning out is probably already upon us. Really it is true! To listen to the news the American people are concerned about two things. Thing Number One: Gas prices and what can be done to lower them. Thing Number Two: What is up with that woman from GA who ran away to Las Vegas to avoid getting married? Those are your major news items in the press. And what’s more, if you count the weekend, those two items have dominated headlines for SIX days. Six (6) days! That is insane. What makes it insane? There is very little the government can do about Number One. And there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about Number Two.

So the House Ethics Committee will investigate DeLay. They will investigate others as well (your Maximum Leader can only hope they jump on Nancy Pelosi too). And in the end, after the dust settles and the blood seeps into the earth; Tom DeLay will have to step down as Republican Leader. Your Maximum Leader maintains that is the only outcome that can help the Democrats at all.

On the off chance that House Democrats change their tack and allow the DeLay investigation to go nowhere and DeLay retain his leadership post; it will spell the end for the Democrats in the House through the end of the Bush Administration and probably into the first two years of the next Administration. They will have castrated themselves. The only chance the House Democrats have to gain/acquire/use/build any political power is by showing they have grown a pair and get rid of DeLay by hook or crook. Sure, they might have to sacrifice a few of their own along the way. But they will show they are a force to be reckoned with. Otherwise they are the minority party in a body that reserves no rights to the minority.

Your Maximum Leader will stay tuned.

Carry on.

hmmmmm….
our Propaganda Minister says

3. I thought you’d be more amused by the idea of me drinking again, but if you are going to hire a bouncer to supervise me, please insure that she’s cute, petite, and planning to stay overnight.

and Sadie says

Which reminds me, the Minister of Propaganda has resumed his presence among the Naked Villains, and his persuasive nature has caused me to believe. In fact, I think he’s attained the status of my new blog crush

Could this possibly be arranged for Jackfest?

Inquiring Ministers want to know!

Back to the trenches

It appears that Sadie has a new crush.

Once again, the hardworking salt of the earth gets cast aside for a flashy Hollywood insider.

I just don’t understand this.

Ah, wait a minute…

This is obviously one of those “Get your true love’s attention by arousing his jealousy by feigning interest in his friend.”

I mean, come on. What woman could possibly think Rob was more blogcrushable than I?

For those of you who come late to the blog, I will illustrate the utter irrefutability of the previous statement with a chart:

Yes, after reviewing this point by point comparison, it is obvious that Sadie is just playing the jealousy card.

UPDATE: If Sadie thinks I’m metrosexual, she ought to get a load of “Hollywood Rob” and his meticulously trimmed goatee.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is very very tired. He has been at the Villainschloss coping with a 10 month old wee Villain with pneumonia. It has not been fun. But, we turned a corner yesterday afternoon and all is looking much better.

Well… Your Maximum Leader must tip his bejeweled floppy hat to the Llamas. They mentioned that “The Simpsons” hadn’t (in their opinion) been too funny of late. Well, last night your Maximum Leader watched episodes 350 and 351.

And neither of them were funny.

(Cue Nelson Muntz voice) Ha! Ha!

So, your Maximum Leader is disappointed in that. But, you can’t expect the writers to be “on” all the time… He can hope that season 17 is better.

In other news… Sadie has found a new naked villain to be her blog crush. The lovely Sadie is “believing” in the Minister of Propaganda.

Poor Smallholder.

(Cue Nelson Muntz voice) Ha! Ha! Sadie dumped Smallholder…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader continues to be amazed at the number of news programs dedicated (or dedicating a significant portion of their time) to Pope Benedict XVI. As you no doubt know, there always seem to be two pundits on all these shows. One “Conservative” Catholic and one “Liberal” Catholic. The show generally consists of the host (or hostess) lobbing some mindless questions into play and watching the pundits go nuts.

Your Maximum Leader wonders why on earth we don’t have more people familiar with the prophecies of St. Malachy on TV.

Who is St. Malachy and what are his prophecies you might ask?

Well, until your Maximum Leader read this article (Doomsayers Say Benedict Fits World End Prophecy) he had never heard of St. Malachy.

So it seems as though Pope Benedict XVI is the second to the last Pope. And the next Pope will be the one who leads the righteous before Jesus at the final judgement.

Hummm….

Guess you shouldn’t make any long-term plans then.

Carry on.