Apparantly, conspiracy nutballs now insist 9/11 (or at least the pentagon portion of the attack) was an Government Conspiracy of some sort. Phantom bullet? Now we have a phantom cruise missile.

Where is Oliver Stone? Has he heard of this yet?

Back… and to the left…

Back to the trenches....

From that wonderful Leftist rag, the Washington Post, here’s a very good piece about the nature of terrorism by Jim Hoagland. I agree with the conclusion he draws. We can’t win the war on Terrorism ourselves, though we can help direct it’s course. A victory over Islamo-facist terrorism has to come from within Islam.

Greetings, loyal minons. Your Maximum Leader tried to blog some on Monday. But, technical problems destroyed one post; and the other was such crap that your Maximum Leader didn’t want to disappoint you all by posting it.

Then, today, your Maximum Leader had to attend to some other matters. After taking care of business, he went to clear his mind at one of his favourite places. This is the view from where he was.

If you want the full sized image click here.

Your Maximum Leader is not watching the VP debate. Just the sight of John Edwards fills your Maximum Leader with a desire to smite a dwarf. And listening to Edwards… Well, it is best you not know…

So instead it is the Yankees and Twins… Go anyone but Yankees.

Carry on.

UPDATE: There is a prize to any (non-ministerial) minion who can guess where this photo was taken.

Carry on.

My cow’s portrait is for sale on the internet!

Here is Bonnie in all her glory!

And so is Kermit, the Rat Terrier wonderdog!

And we wouldn’t want to leave out my organic tick control squad.

Now that she is famous, do you think Bonnie will start getting all uppity?

The Foreign Minister asked about gut feelings.

I think that Bush wins big.

Kerry’s campaign so far has been one clusterduck after another; I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe this is going to change, so I think the undecideds will break for George.

What the heck do I know?

The Propaganda Minister makes a case for a strong Kerry closing but Bush and Rove aren’t Weld.

Greg,

I knew that a post on guns would bring you out of your shell!

How the hell are ya!?

You should stop and take a bow - you were the one who convinced me that handgun control was unlikely to reduce crime rates.

But your examples below illustrate exactly what I am arguing against!

The Foreign Minister wrote:

“Why don’t Diane and Co. write legislation to reduce all speeds to 10 MPH and ban any car that goes over 50. It would save a lot of lives.”

You meant for that to sound absurd. And it is.

Public policy should balance societal objectives. Transportation is a societal good. Deaths are bad. So how do we reasonably regulate automobiles while still allowing the good that flows from ease of movement to happen?

How ’bout speed limits at 65 (but not enforced until 75)?

How ’bout mandating airbags? (The gun equivalent would be safeties and gun locks)

How ’bout mandating child safety seats? (The gun equivalent would be kid-proof gun safes)

How ’bout taking away drivers licenses from irresponsible drivers?

How ’bout making prospective drivers pass a test and earn a license?

Are any of those requirements unreasonable?

I’d say they do a good job balancing liberty and minimization of harm.

Balance, people, balance.

Stop buying into the slippery slope. Join me in the middle ground.

UPDATE: Sorry, Greg, I don’t want you to think that, as my valued friend, you weren’t worthy of your very own embedded link insult.

I’m giggling uncontrollably.

The Maximum Leader’s last post is a hoot.

On the off chance that he is NOT exaggerating for comedic affect, here is a fisk of his fisk!

(Naked Villainy is your one stop shop for flame wars!)

This all started with Velociworld’s rant against the slippery slope of incremental activism. More precisely, it was Velociman’s rant about how the left refuses to acknowledge that they are engaged in incremental activism. In my reflection on that post, I challenged Velociman’s central assumption. Unlike pro-life activism, logic does not carry gun control, smoking restrictions, fast food labeling (control?), or drunk driving laws to an irreducible conclusion.

In brief:

If abortion is murder. Therefore, ALL abortion is wrong. If one accepts the first statement, then one must accept the second.

The same slippery slope of logic does not apply to gun control, etc.

I particularly focused on the gun control because I knew it would push the buttons of my dear Maximum Leader and the Foreign Minister. Think it worked?

The Maximum Leader would like us to only consider a few extremists who advocate the total disarmament of the North American continent. But these extremists are not a real danger to our gun “rights.” As they move through the spectrum of increasingly restrictive gun laws, more and more of their support will evaporate. I expect that only a tiny percentage of the American public wants to ban hunting rifles.

My response to Velociman’s article was not an attempt to grant cover to the leading gun control advocates highlighted by the Maximum Misleader. My response was to Velociman’s broad paintbrush (to quote myself:)

“Methinks the good Velociman paints with too broad of a brush, particularly when he implies that all advocates of gun control want to eliminate all guns and leave right-thinking people at the mercy of the evil mutant criminal hordes.”

Velociman himself was not talking about just the leaders of the gun control movement:

“A left-winger will deny this shit forever. “NO! All we want is to get assault weapons off the street. All we want is to get Saturday Nite Specials out the hands of criminals. All we want is safety locks on handguns so children don’t blow their widdle brains out.” Bullshit. They want every gun in America melted down, and recast as sculptures to draft dodgers in Canada, or statues of Che Guevara.”

(As an aside: kudos to Velociman for the statues of Che Guevera line. Very funny!)

I’m not sure how the Minimum Reader missed this very clear language. Perhaps his poor textual analysis skills, as demonstrated by his parsing of the Second Amendment have rendered him incapable of seeing shades of gray. (Rose colored glasses! Hell no! The Maximum Leader uses the patened Ted Turner DECOLORIZATION technology)

I did, however, enjoy the Maximum Leader’s riff on my squishy lines. I was becoming concerned with the frequency with which he passed up the straight lines I have been lofting over the plate.

With regard to the textual analysis of the Second Amendment:

Cool sentence diagram. Love it. I have seen others that reverse the meaning the other direction.

Hmmmm. If we can’t turn to the English teachers for a definitive interpretation of the Constitution, who could we turn to?

It’s too bad there aren’t any people out there who interpret the Constitution professionally and are empowered by our system of government to do so…

Wait! Let’s ask the courts.

Hmmmm. It seems that the courts have always (with the exception of one recent circuit court ruling that was non-binding and rendered moot by further court action - see the archives for our earlier exploration of this topic), always ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals.

But I’m not here to get into another pissing match in which we both dig up legal opinion and sort through court cases. The point I was making (and the Maximum Misreader knows this) is that the gun nuts conistently ignore the first part of the Amendment. The Amendment has to be read as a whole. The “well-regulated” part isn’t a product of Ms. Brady’s opium dream.

I’m for well-regulating firearms. The Constitution explicitly says this is permissable.

Before we move away from the Constitution, I can’t help but bash the Minimum Breeder’s careless error:

“Besides, has the Smallholder ever really stopped to consider that all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are individual? Humm… How odd that only one would be some sore of restrictive collective right”

Actually, my dear Maximum Feeder, both the Second and Tenth Amendments protect the rights of the states. And I thought you righties dug the Tenth Amendment. Remember when Reagan made it cool again?

But moving away from Constitutional one-ups-manship, let us turn to policy.

Just because owning guns isn’t a right doesn’t mean that it should be illegal. You don’t have a right to snowmobile in Yellowstone - but that doesn’t mean snowmobiling ought to be illegal.

(As a brief aside, I don’t believe abortion is a right - penumbras be damned - the creation of this right rests on very shaky legal ground. Of course, my opinion on this, like the Maximum Teether’s opinion on the Second Amendment, holds less weight than the opinion of the judiciary. But stay with me. If abortion is not a right, and if one believes that life does not begin at conception, one could still argue that abortion should be legal, in much the same way that the Hollywood homies of the Minister of Propaganda argue that the non-right of lightin’ up doobies for “medicinal purposes” ought to be legal.)

The Maximum Mouth-breather writes:

“Liberalization of concealed carry laws and other pro-gun initiatives have been shown by some researchers to be connected with the overall drop in violent crime in the US. Of course, as your Maximum Leader and the Smallholder are well aware, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. For every expert your Maximum Leader could cite, the Smallholder could cite a contrarian. Then the argument would not be focused on what a nimrod the Smallholder is, but on the credentials of expert witnesses.”

Actually, my dear Maximum Mulah-heeder, I wouldn’t cite contrary sources. I would first look at the evidence, because as a “squishy” centrist, I like finding out information that might persuade me to change my mind. Only empty-headed extremists cover their ears and sing “la-la-la” so they aren’t “confused by the facts,”* about say, I dunno, the nature of gayness or global warming.

*Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve got a closed mind. - Earl Landgrebe

(As an aside, kudos to Mike for bringing back the hyperlinked insult from the previous Rob/Mark nimrod posts. Ha!)

My position on gun control, as the Minimum Peeper well knows, has changed over time. I have become convinced that blanket bans are not the silver bullet (heh - kill myself) that will make society safe. To quote Eric Idle, what I’m on about is the misrepresentation of history practiced by nutcases on the right (and I mean that in the kindest way, Mike) who like to pretend they are arguing for the preservation of sacred principles.

So a nuanced view would be to try to craft laws that allow for guns to be used as tools and home defense while minimizing crime and accidental injury. Crime can’t be limited by gun control - it is much more a reflection of poverty and socialization (but I am open if anyone has evidence that gun restrictions reduce crime). So can we accomplish the goal of allowing guns to be used as tools and home defense and at the same time reduce accidental injury?

How about using shotguns for home defense instead of handguns? When I shoot the boogeyman coming through my front door, my shotgun’s discharge is unlikely to travel three hundred feet and burrow itself into the skull of a sleeping third grader.

The Maximum Leader disagrees, and for once, it is in an area amenable to reasoned discussion:

“And anyway, particularly when talking about home defense, a pistol is more handy to use in the house. It is less likely to get caught up in furniture or bump against walls. Women are generally more comfortable with pistols than with long guns, etc. etc.”

Now that we have moved past the phony rights argument, we can discuss practical things. Shouldn’t anyone using ANY firearm have enough orientation with the weapon to be comfortable and able to walk with the weapon in question? If my wife was uncomfortable using firearms, I’d be much happier if she was packing a shotgun when confronted with the barbarian at the end of the hall. She is much more likely to hit him with the shotgun. Spray pattern and all that. But I’m open to continuing the discussion. See how this works? We create policy by weighing pros and cons and measuring safety against liberty.

Before leaving the subject of guns to address the Laffer curve, let me poke at one more bit of Mikey’s argument:

He quotes me:

I don’t want to ban all guns. But I’m comfortable banning rocket-propelled grenades. I’m comfortable banning the Foreign Minister’s beloved MP-40. (but it is coooool to shoot!)

and responded:

“Indeed it is cool to shoot… But the Smallholder is making something of a strawman argument here. MP-40s (as well as other full automatic weapons) are HIGHLY regulated by the Federal Government. You can’t just walk into a gun store and buy one. (You could around 1904, but your Maximum Leader doesn’t think that the Minister of Agriculture is confused as to the year.) You need a Class III license to own one.”

Game.

Set.

Match.

The Maximum Leader essentially concedes my entire point: Gun Control is NOT a slipery slope AND not a constitutionally protected individual right.

We banned machine guns a century ago. And yet we still have other weapons. So the majority of people/legislators who supported/created the ban on machine guns did NOT hang together to ban all weapons.

The ban on private ownership of weapons has not been overturned on constitutional grounds for a century. Ergo, the ban must be constitutional.

And the whole Class III license thing… I mentioned it in the post and you quoted me mentioning it in your feeble fisk. So why would you use it in an attempt to illustrate my ignorance of gun laws? It is not like you to be so sloppy, Mike. For shame.

As to the Laffer curve:

The Maximum Speeder (have you ever driven with this man? Good lord!) writes:

“You know, the Smallholder is always hung up on the “right side” of the Laffer Curve. He just assumes we are on the “left side” of the curve. He’s never ever clued anyone in on why this might be the case. He just assumes that marginal tax rates should be increased. He never backs up his assertion. He just assumes that since most people to whom he is speaking have never heard of the Laffer Curve when he mentions it, and they just stand there gaping at him; he has scared them intellectually and is correct.”

First of all, it is not to scare people off and claim victory. If people are talking about tax policy, well, by god, either they know about the Laffer curve and Adam Smith or they are assclowns. I don’t enjoy talking policy with assclowns (with the occasional exception made for old college chums like Mike).

There is a simple way to test what side of the Laffer curve we are on.

If we are on the right side, reducing taxes should increase government revenue.

If we are on the left side, increasing taxes should decrease government revenue.

The beauty of the Laffer curve is that it is so simple.

When Clinton pushed through his “unprecedented, humongous, (insert your overblown Republican rhetoric here), did government revenues go up or down?

When Bush passed his tax cuts, did revenue go up or down?

I’ll concede that a revenue drop after the Bush tax cuts would not be a decisive indicator of our position on the curve - other factors (like the emerging recession) would push down revenue and the salutary effects of the tax cut would take a while to materialize, according to both Laffer and Keynes.

But a tax increase ought to have an immediate negative impact on the economy; businessmen would immediately begin altering business decisions in response to a burdensome tax increase.

I really don’t have the data about what happened to government revenue after Clinton’s tax increase. I can’t figure out how to winnow down the google response to “United State” “tax revenue” “by year.”

Perhaps the Maximum Leader would like to use his greater computer schools to find the data.

If revenue dropped after Clinton’s tax increase, I’ll admit that we are on the right side of the Laffer curve.

If the revenue increased post-Clinton, I’ll assert more strongly that we are on the left side of the curve.

But I won’t look for the Maximum Denier to admit anything on his side. He’ll be too busy clapping his hands over his ears and singing “la la la.”

Who wants to bet that the Maximum Leader NEVER posts revenue data?

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was laughing out loud today reading the latest from the crack young staff at The Hatemonger’s Quarterly. Your Maximum Leader loved the post; but will have to quibble over one small point. It is a dream job. Really! It is. Any news reader job (the news anchor at ABC - who’s name your Maximum Leader does not speak or write) is like hitting the lottery. Read the teleprompter with the appropriate emotion and get paid millions to do so. In some ways it is better than the lottery. Because your employer will fly you around the nation to do “live broadcasts” on their nickle. What’s more, do it for long enough and soon the great unwashed will start to think of you as an “expert” or a “celebrity.” You don’t even need to complete high school (like that news anchor on ABC) to do it. It is as close to perfect as a job can be.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is happy right now. You see, most of the time when you want to read one blogger flaming another there is all that bother of opening two browser windows, or clicking back and forth in one browser between two different sites. Here at Nakedvillainy.com we make it easy for you. We flame each other. And we do it all on the same page! Ah the joy we bring to our readers here!

Earlier the good Smallholder decided to comment on a post from your Maximum Leader. Your Maximum Leader quotes him here for your reading pleasure:

Methinks the good Velociman paints with too broad of a brush, particularly when he implies that all advocates of gun control want to eliminate all guns and leave right-thinking people at the mercy of the evil mutant criminal hordes.

Well Smallholder, your Maximum Leader hates to have to clue you in on this. (Again.) But while you may not want to ban all guns, that is the stated goal of the leaders of the anti-gun coalitions. Remember Dianne Feinstein’s quotation? The one she made on 60 Minutes? The one that went: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it.” Remember “Americans for Gun Safety?” They are all about incremental gun banning. So, good Minister of Agriculture, don’t assume please that because you are not in favour of incremental gun elimination that many others - many who are much more active in this area than you - are like-minded.

Then the Smallholder continued:

Perhaps I’m an exception, but…

You are (obviously) an exception. Thus you are also a minority of one and we can disregard your opinion. We can statistically prove it does not matter. Just like your vote.

(Brace yourself for independently principled discourse)

Bracing!

(No, this is not “squishy.”)

Yes it is.

(I mean it! I’m not “squishy!”)

Yes you are.

(Damn. Like Kerry I seem unable to take a nuanced position without being tarred by the Maximum Leader’s epithets… Okay, perhaps what follows is a wee bit squishy.)

Are you orange-skinned too? If so, perhaps you are John Kerry. We never see you together… Oh, wait… You’re a poor yeoman farmer… And your Maximum Leader knows that Mrs. Smallholder is definately not Teresa Heinz-Kerry.. Okay, we’re back to you just being squishy.

I believe guns are a useful tool…

(Blah, blah, blah - ML)

Big Hominids rummaging through your fridge for tasty delicacies? Defend your nacos.

Obscure literary references wooing your daughter with felt tip markers? You know what to do.

That said, I don’t believe in unlimited, unfettered, unregulated gun ownership. It’s not necessary and it is not a right (see: “A well-regulated militia…”).

You know what never ceases to amaze and amuse your Maximum Leader. He does not believe that the Smallholder has bothered to read the Second Amendment beyond the word “militia.” For almost all the years your Maximum Leader and the Smallholder have been acquainted, the Smallholder ends all discussion of the Second Amendment at the word militia. Perhaps the Smallholder needs a little schoolin’? Your Maximum Leader is prepared to deliver a lesson.

First, let us regard the text of the Second Amendment. It reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The good Smallholder is all hung up on the “well regulated militia” part. To the exclusion of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” part. Your Maximum Leader wonders if any of his readers remember how to diagram sentences. Your Maximum Leader is a bit rusty at it. But, he pulled out some grammar books at the Villainschloss and started to diagram the Second Amendment. He was going to photoshop his diagram and post it. But a little digging and a little poking found a pre-existing diagram of the Second Amendment completed by a former editor at Houghton Mifflin. As it is available, your Maximum Leader presents it here.

Want a full sized image? Click here.

Now lets look at this. You can see that the diagram has two parts. The top is labled “collective” the bottom “individual.” The two levels are connected in a nomative relationship. They are, in effect, a dependent clause to the main subject. The main subject which does declare a right to be individual. Besides, has the Smallholder ever really stopped to consider that all the other rights ennumerated in the Bill of Rights are individual? Humm… How odd that only one would be some sort of restrictive collective right.

Back to the diagram. The relationship between the dependent clause and the main subject is the defining relationship. That relationship is who are the militia, they are the body of the people, who individually have the right to keep and bear arms.

Tis clear as plainsong…

Allow your Maximum Leader to continue:

I don’t want to ban all guns. But I’m comfortable banning rocket-propelled grenades. I’m comfortable banning the Foreign Minister’s beloved MP-40.(But it is coooool to shoot!)

Indeed it is cool to shoot… But the Smallholder is making something of a strawman argument here. MP-40s (as well as other fully automatic weapons) are HIGHLY regulated by the Federal Government. You can’t just walk into a gun store and buy one. (You could around 1904, but your Maximum Leader doesn’t think that the Minister of Agriculture is confused as to the year.) You need a Class III license to own one.

I’m comfortable telling private citizens that they may not have handguns, but I’m not a fanatic about it. If someone were to convince me that handguns were so much better than shotguns for home defense that their concealability and potential for abuse was outweighed by that utility, I’d change positions.

Just because you aren’t a fanatic, doesn’t mean that most other advocating similar positions are not. And anyway, particularly when talking about home defence, a pistol is more handy to use in the house. It is less likly to get caught up in furniture or bump against walls. Women are generally more comfortable with pistols than with long guns, etc. etc. But your Maximum Leader knows that this course is a non-starter for the M of A.

In fact, the most persuasive arguments I have heard about permitting widespread gun ownership aren’t based on a faulty interpretation of the Second Amendment; they are based on practicality. Would restricting gun ownership actually lead to a reduction in crime rates? It might not, simply because gunownership is so widespread that we will never be able to get all the guns out of the hands of criminals.

Liberalization of concealed carry laws and other pro-gun initiatives have been shown by some researchers to be connected with the overall drop in violent crime in the US. Of course, as your Maximum Leader and the Smallholder are well aware, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. For every expert your Maximum Leader could cite, the Smallholder could cite a contrarian. Then the argument would not be focused on what a nimrod the Smallholder is, but on the credentials of expert witnesses.

So the slippery slope on gun control does not apply to me - or many other Americans. Even many NRA members support the restriction of Class III weapons.

Great. But you are not the primary object of the slippery slope argument. It is directed more at people like Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer.

But now things get interesting…

The slippery slope DOES apply to abortion. And it should. If you believe that life begins at conception, abortion is murder - so one cannot compromise. I am tremendously puzzled by pro-lifers who don’t follow the logic of their own position and are willing to make exceptions in the case of rape or incest. If you believe that abortion is murder, it is also morally impermissible to murder a fetus for the sin of its father. In this case, failing to follow the slippery slope is asinine.

What the Smallholder wants to say is that we should be applying the Slippery Slope argument style to the abortion debate. But no one really does. Because it is more satisfying for both sides to call the other side names.

But now one of your Maximum Leader’s favourite refrains of the Smallholder.

I wish people would reject the slippery slope on tax policy. Reducing taxes makes sense IF we are on the right side of the Laffer curve. But many anti-tax proponents mindlessly mouth the canard that “tax cuts grow revenue” - a silly position that, when carried to a logical extreme, seems to hold that 0% taxation would lead to unlimited government revenue. I respect Republicans who openly admit that Bush’s deficit creation is an intentional attempt to bankrupt the government as a way to force a restructuring of government priorities - at least their goal is open and can be discussed. Voodoo economists who hold that Republican policies ended Clinton-era surpluses in order to increase government revenue frustrate me.

You know, the Smallholder is always hung up on the “right side” of the Laffer Curve. He just assumes we are on the “left side” of the curve. He’s never ever clued anyone in on why this might be the case. He just assumes that marginal tax rates should be increased. He never backs up his assertion. He just assumes that since most people to whom he is speaking have never heard of the Laffer Curve when he mentions it, and they just stand there gaping at him; he has scared them intellectually and is correct.

So, the Smallholder just keeps on assuming that the US is on the wrong side of the curve for tax cutting purposes. This is mainly because, in his squishy little heart, the Smallholder is really a Utopian Socialist. First he wants onerous taxation to equalize misery, then he wants to build his agrarian utopia.

Your Maximum Lader hears that the Smallholder has an image of Charles Fourier tattooed on his arse. And yes, your Maximum Leader caught the Minister of Agriculture saying that in his utopia androgynous plants would copulate, six moons would orbit the earth, the seas would lose their salt and become oceans of lemonade, and every woman would have four lovers or husbands simultaneously.

I stand prepared for my flaming.

Consider yourself cutlered.

Carry on.

I don’t care who you are personally favoring or will vote for…

Give me the final electoral count come Nov 3
Whoever is closest will get a nice prize from the Nakedvillany Store.

My Guess
Bush 330 Kerry 208

Back to the Trenches…..

Attention Secret Service: This is satire!

In honor of the Maximum Leader’s advice to Kerry, your Minister of Agriculture has a simpler bit of advice:

Call a press conference. Deliver this speech:

“My fellow Americans,

A majority of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong course.

Americans, whether they supported the initial invasion of Iraq or not, have to agree that the post-invasion management of the ‘peace’ has been criminally incompetent.

For the first time since Herbert Hoover, a presidential administration has presided over a net loss of jobs.

The Clinton surpluses have been set aside and our government has returned to the deficit spening of yore. The political right has (perhaps justifiably) criticized the American left for favoring ‘tax and spend’ policies. The political right should be even more outraged by ’spend money like a drunken sailor and let our grandkids foot the bill’ policies.

This country ought to be having a serious discussion about priorities.

But we aren’t.

It is my fault.

I did not engage the public in an honest discussion about policy. I was afraid that many Americans would not agree with my beliefs.

I did not run on my long record of service in the United States Senate. I was afraid that the complexities of lawmaking (which is much like the production of sausage) were too much for the American people and was unwilling to risk explaining the complexity of my position(s).

I ran a campaign based on my combat record in Vietnam. This record had little bearing on my current ideas or leadership ability and the public seems to have figured that out.

The Bush campaign has taken advantage of this serious error in judgment and eviscerated my campaign.

Because I have not offered real policy alternatives, my opponent has not had to defend his policy choices.

Because I have pretended my Senate career did not exist, my opponent has cherry-picked votes that cast me in a poor light. You have to admire the chutzpah of Cheney condemning me for voting for weapons programs cuts that Rumsfield recommended.

Because my speaking style would win me first place in a Lurch impersonation contest, the Republicans have been able to claim that their candidate is the articulate one.

Because I natter away about Bush’s diplomatic choices but fail to explain how my choices would have differed, the country has been denied a necessary after-action report.

Because I selected a six-time loser to run my campaign, my campaign looks like it is run by a six-time loser.

Because I have delusionally argued that foreign countries base their foreign policy on the relative cuddliness of the American executive rather than their elf-interest, Americans have not examined the real failings of our current alliance system.

To expiate my shame, to revive the Democratic party, to allow my running-mate to step forward and finish the campaign at the head of the ticket, I will now commit seppuku.

God bless you and God bless America.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader doffs his floppy hat in the direction of newly returned from Morocco Mr. Trout.

Kilgore, your Maximum Leader is glad to see you back. Now where the hell is his postcard!

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader did some surfing around the airwaves this morning to get the opinions of the “chattering classes” to the debate last night. The general consensus of the mainstream media (and yes your Maximum Leader is including FoxNews in that group) is that Kerry won, but didn’t score a knock-out blow. But isn’t a knock-out blow really what Kerry needed?

Upon reflection your Maximum Leader can understand that assessment. Kerry did come off as more polished and articulate. But the President has never been regarded as a great orator. Kerry did do a fine job of trying to define himself and his positions, to the extent that the format allowed.

Neither Senator Kerry, nor the President, told us anything new. Everyone seems to agree on that point. But let us look at some other items…

The Senator never told us about his “plan” beyond he was going to have a summit. Your Maximum Leader must ask, “A summit of whom exactly?” Lets see… Everyone who wants to help is helping (and helping to the extent they can help); and those that aren’t helping have been clear that no amount of inducement will change their mind.

That would be one hell of a summit.

And your Maximum Leader is starting to grow quite cross with Senator Kerry. He is really denigrating the support of many of our traditional allies (UK, Australia, Italy, Japan, S. Korea to name a few) and a number of new allies (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary) in Iraq. Are the lives of our friends soliders less valuable than ours. Why is the support of France, Germany, and the Benelux countries so critical to Senator Kerry?

Your Maximum Leader understands that we are bearing most of the burdens in Iraq. But we are the superpower. Does Senator Kerry honestly believe that even if he could persuade France, Germany, and the Benelux countries to join our coalition that they would provide enough troops to reduce the American presence to the point where we could say that we weren’t shouldering the majority of the work? What is the magic number Senator Kerry? Getting the US portion down from (your oft quoted) 90% down to 85%? 80% Does Senator Kerry honestly believe that the Russians or the Chinese (who have the troop levels to theoretically significantly reduce the number of US troops on the ground) are going to send troops?

And that whole “global test” line for committing our troops to war? Haven’t we all gone over this? Do we really want the UN determining our foreign policy? Your Maximum Leader certainly doesn’t.

But you know something, my minions? The debate did draw out a good policy difference that needs to be discussed more. The whole North Korea issue. Your Maximum Leader believes that part of the mess that is North Korea was caused by our previous bi-lateral talks. Your Maximum Leader firmly believes that the only way to move North Korea is to have China exert pressure on the regime. That appears to be the President’s policy, but not Senator Kerry’s policy. That was a good contrast.

Now, on the President’s side… He stuck to the talking points. And that didn’t help him out. He gave a shortened version of the stump speech in his way. It didn’t hurt him either. He did appear anxious and a bit frustrated. And that may have hurt him with the “I’m-gonna-vote-using-silly-criteria” crowd.

The President’s strategery appeared to be, hold the line and don’t take risks. A bit more aggresiveness would have been in order.

Your Maximum Leader will slightly modify his take from last night. Kerry may have won the debate, but his performance may not have any impact on the overall status of the election. Due in part to thee being no memorable moments or serious gaffes. Kerry must use the upcoming debates to push for a memorable moment or gaffe on the President’s part if he really wants to gain some momentum. The President just has to continue to not take risks (but work on his delivery) to keep Kerry from getting the knock-out blow he needs.

That said, your Maximum Leader prefers fireworks… But isn’t expecting any now.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader mentioned in his post-debate post that he was blogging naked. He received an e-mail this morning from a lowly minion wishing to remain annonymous. The minion writes:

What were you doing blogging naked? Didn’t you have any pajamas?

Your Maximum Leader must disappoint many minions by stating publically that he doesn’t own any pajamas. But that doesn’t explain why he was blogging naked last night. The simple fact was lazyness and fatherhood coupled together.

You see, your Maximum Leader was holding the little Villain in his arms while watching the debate. And your Maximum Leader was fully clothed. Then the wee Villain decided to spit-up all over his father’s shirt after finishing his rice cereal. So your Maximum Leader removed his shirt and threw it in the wash.

Then the wee Villain fell asleep in your Maximum Leader’s arms. About 10 minutes before the debate ended, the little boy decided to have an explosive bowel movement. The erupted out of the side of his diaper, and all over your Maximum Leader’s boxers. So, your Maximum Leader removed the boxers and threw them into the wash as well. And he was too lazy to remove himself to his dressing chamber and get new ones, as after he updated the blog, he was going to bed. So he blogged naked. (The first time in fact.)

There you have it. More information than you wanted. But your Maximum Leader is nothing if not open about his state of dress or undress with his loyal minions. And your Maximum Lader can promise that he will never - ever - install a livecam on his blog.

Carry on.