Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader didn’t post yesterday because he was really sick. Really really sick. One of those nasty viral thingies. His fever is down to 100.6 from 103 yesterday. He might feel up to posting laster… But don’t count on it.
Carry on.
WoW!
I can’t believe it ML… you have been a Braves fan as long as I have known you… through good seasons and bad. Although, with 14 consecutive division titles, you can’t really say that they have had a “bad” season…
But with 14 straight division titles, and only 1 Chapionship. I think that sets a record for any Major US sports team (as far as lack of producing national titles despite winning division title).
But I digress….
That is an Amazing thing to switch teams, considering that the team he is leaving is the best team in the division, and the team he is going to is the worst team in the division… (although, at .500, there were only three teams in both the central and western division that had better records).
And can we take time out to applaud the National League East? All the teams in that division were at .500 or better!
Kudos to the ML for going with the hometown team!
Now, if we can just pry him away from those dreaded packers and introduce him to the hometown REDSKINS…..
Hail to the Redskins, Hail Victory….
Back to the Trenches…..
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader while very rarely agreeing with E.J. Dionne always enjoys reading his columns in the Washington Post. Today’s column on William F. Buckley, The Right’s Intellectual is no exception. While your Maximum Leader thinks that some of Dionne’s assertions are flatout wrong, he does make some interesting observations that everyone on the left and right should be aware of.
Carry on.
The White House has made me change my mind.
Meirs’ confirmation handler says it doesn’t matter if she’s brilliant. The less-than-brilliant Americans deserve to have their own judge.
Orin Hatch says we ought not to ask commerce clause questions until Ms. Meirs has had time to take a “crash course” in Constitutional Law.
Well, hell, let us just take the pro-Meirs side at their word. Confirm Meirs!
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader just isn’t feeling much like blogging today. Although that will not keep him from trotting out a few links and comments for your reading enjoyment…
First off, a follow-up to the piece from last week about researchers “rediscovering” the Spanish Flu, which was the cause of the Influenza Epidemic of 1918. Here is a great piece from the Washington Post about the quest to find the genome of that famous flu. Your Maximum Leader should also respond here to Loyal Minion Bill’s comment about reinventing the flu as a trigger for a “Stand” moment. (Bill’s comment can be read here - in the trail following your Maximum Leader’s last flu post.) Your Maximum Leader remembers reading in one of these articles that the Spanish Flu of 1918 is reasonably harmless now. As with most flu variations, if you survive it once you build up immunity to it in the future. So, most humans alive today have some natural-born resistance to that variation of the flu. Of course, we have no natural-born resistance to the newest version of the bird flu that appears to be spreading around Asia right now. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to fear the Spanish Flu escaping the lab and wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting population.
Excursus 1: Your Maximum Leader does, in fact, have some lingering fears that biological weapons manufactured and improperly stored in the former Soviet Union. Those biological agents do pose a real threat to cause a chain reaction of plague as described in the early chapters of Stephen King’s novel, The Stand.
Excursus 2: Your Maximum Leader believes that 100 years from now when people are studying late 20th Century literature (f in fact they do study literature in the future) the only book of Stephen King’s that will be read will be The Stand. Of all of his novels it is the only one that is truly epic in scope.
Secondly… Your Maximum Leader predicted an upset victory of the Atlanta Braves over the Houston Astros in the National League Division Series. Well that didn’t happen. Neither did the Red Sox over the White Sox. St Louis prevailed. And we’ll see who wins in the Yankees/Angels series. At this point your Maximum Leader would like to see a St Louis/White Sox World Series. Frankly he wouldn’t mind a Houston/White Sox World Series either. He doesn’t want either the Angels or the Yankees fighting for the American League. Your Maximum Leader, in honour of the Astros, doffs his bejeweled floppy hat towards the fair Minion Molly (of Houston). Your boys won a great series. You should be proud.
Thirdly, while talking baseball. Your Maximum Leader, now that the regular season is over, will officially announce he is switching sides… Sides in baseball that is. You may remember your Maximum Leader’s struggles with Washington DC getting the Nationals. Well… Your Maximum Leader went to a Nats game a few weeks ago and at that game got himself a authentic fitted Nationals cap. On the way home from the stadium, he drove through downtown DC and gave his Atlanta Braves cap (purchased at Turner Field during a great Braves/Mets series by the way) to a homeless guy. Thus was your Maximum Leader’s conversion from a Braves to a Nationals fan complete. He is sure he’ll always have a soft spot for the Braves in his heart, but he’s fallen for his hometown Nats.
Fourthly… Your Maximum Leader promises that in the Mike World Order Sadie and Annika will both be on the Supreme Court of the MWO. Frankly, if you are a loyal minions and swear fealty to your Maximum Leader early on (like now) you will be picked for some great patronage job. Your Maximum Leader makes no secret of his support of cronyism in the MWO. To be a Friend Of Mike is everything.
Fifthly… Speaking of Friends of Mike and the Mike World Order… It has been a while since he posted it… So if you read below the fold you’ll have the newly revised list of the 40 Signs of the Mike World Order (in no particular order). Otherwise…
Carry on.
(more…)
My main Gripe is that I think that the nominee for the court by a Repubican, conservative President, should be a logical choice that ANY Republican, conservative President would make.
Would Regan, have chosen Miers?
Would Bob Dole have chosen Miers?
Would the next president, G Allen, choose Miers?
I think not.
There are a lot of Republicans out there that are not comfortable with this choice, and are hoping that she won’t get confirmed.
back to the trenches…..
Foreign Minister
Quoting from The Federalist Papers, No. 76, “The Appointing Power of the Executive,” Tuesday, April 1, 1788:
. . . To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to hs political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure . . . (emphasis added)
Mr. Hamilton is rolling in his grave, undoubtedly.
Believe.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader hasn’t written too much over the past few days about the Miers Nomination. Sure he wrote that he wasn’t getting warm tinglies… He also wrote that he agreed with David Frum’s comments in an NRO article. But there was something more about the nomination that upset him.
Many people are claiming to be upset with Ms. Mier’s legal education. Indeed your Maximum Leader would be happy to have more judges from less prestigious law schools. Here in the great Commonwealth of Virginia the University of Virginia law school has the reputation of being the best law school in the state. But lawyers coming out of the University of Richmond and William & Mary pass the bar at a slightly higher rate. If a law school teaches the practical application of the law - and a student learns what they should; then the law school from which a person graduated shouldn’t be an issue. Indeed it is not in this case.
Excursus: If your Maximum Leader is not mistaken, Virginia is still one of a very few states in which one is still allowed to “read law.” This is to say that one can do self-study and then apply to take the bar. If you pass the bar exam and a skills test you can practice in the state. Your Maximum Leader could be mistaken on this, but he is pretty confident he correct. This is the “Patrick Henry” clause in our law. Patrick Henry didn’t formally study law at William & Mary (the only law school south of Philadelphia at the time) but he read law and passed the bar. But he digresses…
So… Educational background is not a problem. What about her experience? Well, she seems to have been a competent lawyer who did make a lot of firsts in her career. While her expertise was not constitutional law, she has a firm grounding in practical law. She has seemed to be in the trenches for her whole career. On the balance that is a good thing. A clear-thinking lawyer who has no previous judicial experience would, in many ways, be an asset on the Supreme Court. That persepective could be quite valuable.
So your Maximum Leader isn’t all that upset with Ms. Miers’ legal career as a possible cause for her disqualification. Indeed, your Maximum Leader will muse that perhaps a clear-thinking person who may have some legal training but wasn’t a lawyer might even be an asset on the Supreme Court. Perhaps we should have an English teacher on the Court. Or a Hitorian. Or just a plain ole citizen who can read the following words and interpret their meaning clearly: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” But once again, your Maximum Leader digresses…
The Smallholder, Brian, and Bill are having a little side discussion about Miers’ intelligence. (Among other items…) Your Maximum Leader, continuing his line of thinking from a moment ago, doesn’t necessarially believe that brilliance is a requirement for being on the Court. In fact he would claim that the majority of the 100 + people to have served on the Supreme Court were not brilliant. They were all intelligent people. Ms. Miers has finished law school, risen far in her field, and seemed to perform better than her peers. This is not the work of an unintelligent person. Indeed, your Maximum Leader isn’t quite sure what standard of intelligence Ms. Miers’ supporters and detractors want to establish. Her accomplishments appear to show that she isn’t a cretin. So one would have to say that Ms. Miers is intelligent enough to sit on the high court.
So not having disqualified Ms Miers on the basis of education, experience, or intelligence where does that leave your Maximum Leader?
It leaves us with her judicial temprement & cronyism.
The President and many supporters say that they know Ms Miers and that she is a “judicial conservative.” And that may be true - so far as we know. And with that little codicil to a phrase - so far as we know - is the beginning of your Maximum Leader’s problem with Ms. Miers. Your Maximum Leader just read over a news analysis peice over on the Washington Post about the Miers nomination. (Check it out yourself.) It comes close to capturing some of the feelings your Maximum Leader has had over the past week about the nomination. She hasn’t faught in the trenches with other conservatives. She hasn’t distinguished herself as a conservative. (And for that matter, neither has George W. Bush - but that is going to be another post.) Nor has she given us any indication of her conservative judicial temprement.
Your Maximum Leader would prefer not to have to guess about her judicial temprement. Sure Ronald Reagan had to guess at Sandra Day O’Connor’s judicial temprement. Not only because she is a woman, but because there were not a lot of judges (or even lawyers of significance) who were known to be “conservative.” The pool was small. That is, 20 years later, not the case today. There are plenty of judicial conservatives out there to choose from. Their names are being bandied about all over the place so much that your Maximum Leader will not bother to recite all their names here. (Except to say the he likes what he has seen of Owens, Luttig, and Brown.)
Frankly, your Maximum Leader is getting a little tired of stealth nominees to the Supreme Court. Sure he realized that after Robert Bork getting a true ideolouge on the Court was right nigh impossible. At least from where he is sitting ideologically. But really… Have we tried our best to put the best and brightest on the high court since Bork in 1987? No. We haven’t. In fact your Maximum Leader is thankful that somehow Antonin Scalia slipped in before things got so dicey. Your Maximum Leader is fairly confident that if we were to go back and check the record we would find that Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Bryer and Ginsburg were not the best and brightest available. Indeed, all the talk this week about Miers has made your Maximum Leader positively bilious. All these commentators (on the left and right) going on about how we deserve better than Miers. You know, that may be true. And your Maximum Leader would counter that we deserve better than just about everyone on the Court.
But politics being what it is… We aren’t going to get the best and brightest. Because they (the best and brightest) ar too contraversial to some Senator or interest group. It is sad really…
Well that leads us down to cronyism. There is not much to say on this one except that your Maximum Leader does think that this nomination comes down to Bush looking around and saying to himself, “I really want to pick Alberto Gonzales - cause he’s my buddy. But everyone tells me I’ve gotta pick a girl. Hummm… Oh yeah! How about Harriet? She’s my buddy too!”
Sure the President says trust me. But lately the President hasn’t done much to earn any blind trust and devotion. (Frankly he’s never had your Maximum Leader’s blind trust or devotion…) Your Maximum Leader doesn’t want to trust him on this. He shouldn’t have to trust the President on this one. And it is upsetting that the President would even ask.
Your Maximum Leader hopes Miers doesn’t get confirmed to the high court (although he doesn’t see how she will not be at this point). In fact, he hopes it is some nexus of improbability that brings the Miers nomination down. Something like Sam Brownback and Chuck Schumer joining together and saying “Miers shall not pass!” He doubts it will happen. But if it does, perhaps the President will pick someone better. (Although the odds are that he would just go and pick Alberto Gonzales… Ick.)
Carry on.
On the morning of the Meirs nomination, an AP US history student from last year sought me ought and announced: “Bush did a Jackson!”
I had to pasue and ask her to clarify her analogy. She recalled Jackson’s creation of the spoils system. Jackson argued (either sincerely or cynically, depending on whether you are a Whig historian) that holding office required no special skills or experience. Therefore you could fire the people with experience and bring in your own loyalists.
Many conservatives are arguing that one does NOT have to be brilliant to be a Supreme Court Justice. This strikes me as a convenient opinion that was not very apparent when we were having a love fest with Roberts’ grey matter. This blogosphere‚Äö?Ñ?¥s sudden rejection of intellectual meritocracy is best illustrated by Hog on Ice’s George Will Smokes Crack.
Read through the comments in the Hog piece. I particularly like the supporter of meidocracy who says:
“If she can’t figure out Con. Law for herself, her huge staff of brilliant Ivy League attorneys will probably be able to explain it to her.”
If we follow Hog’s argument to its logical extreme, we would be able to dispense with the whole nomination and confirmation auto-da-fe process. Let’s just put the names of everyone with a law degree in a hat and pick someone randomly. I mean, interpreting the Constitution is easy. Please note, that although this is sarcasm, I would be amused if we ended up with Associate Justices Annika and Sadie. They are, if you will recall, lawyer types. If experience doesn’t matter, we need more hot chicks.
One of Hog’s readers goes beyond the extreme:
“Why does it have to be a lawyer? I would just as soon have a smart truck driver on the court.”
Huzzah! Maybe even an organic farmer! I’d look even better in a black robe than Annika or Sadie. I would even try not to get cow shit on the bench. I confess I wouldn’t hire a staff of “brilliant Ivy League attorneys.” Put me on the Supreme Court with life tenure and I’ll make the Naked Villains my clerks. But I wouldn’t let the Minister of Propaganda write any opions. I’d just keep him around to get the coffee for me and my chief clerk, Ms. Pressly.
Seriously, some lawyers are better than others. Some minds are better than others. We want the best legal minds to interpret the Constitution. I’d even support a brilliant judge whose interpetations differed from mine. Put Luttig on the court. At least we’d have a high level of intellectual conflict. The friction of ideas will produce better rulings.
Please express your views on the relative merits of what Volokh calls “luminescense.”
Robert Novak says that it is not just about cronyism:
“Members of Congress describe her as a nice person but hardly a constitutional scholar. Indeed, she might trip over questions that Roberts handled so deftly.”
It is conservatives who are questioning Mier’s intellectual firepower.
Farmers in Virginia are receiving emergency disaster relief because of the drought.
Look, it has been dry.
Real dry.
My pastures are short and I’m feeding hay.
I will only break even this year.
But you won’t see me with my hand out asking for tax money.
Why should you all pay higher taxes because my business was not diversified enough to make a profit during entirely predictable periods of dry weather?
Should we also give money to fuel oil companies during unusually warm winters?
How about giving money to lemonade stands during cold snaps?
For a bunch of people who are supposedly rugged indiviodualists, my fellow farmers sure are a bunch of welfare queens.
I’m just sayin’.
I don’t have to put up with the Minister of Propaganda’s threats!
If Rob doesn’t learn to play nice, I’m taking my ball and going home.
Mention you have a cow.
The organic hippie chick granola hotties will be all over you like a hobo on a ham sandwich.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is pleased to resume his part in posting in the weekly forum of topics covered by the Men’s Club and Demystifying Divas. Alas, this week you, dear readers, may have been better served if the good Minister of Propaganda had written on this week’s subject. You see, this week we are dealing with the topic of “How can you tell if someone is single?” Alas, your Maximum Leader is happily married (but not so happy that he wouldn’t entertain offers from… Oh… The dreamy Miss Jennifer Love Hewitt…). Since your Maximum Leader has been married for a while, his ability to spot a single woman has grown dull. But our Minister of Propaganda is single and always looking to make the acquaintance intelligent left-of-center women. So, as you can see, the M of P might be able to shed more light on this subject than your Maximum Leader.
This is not to say that your Maximum Leader has nothing to contribute on this topic. Far from it. You see, now that your Maximum Leader is married and has reproduced from time to time single women just present themselves to him. As he remembers this was also the case when he was unmarried, but in a serious relationship with a woman.
Your Maximum Leader has found that being a father in certain situations is a sure-fire way of attracting single women. By this he means that when he goes out places with one of his brood, without the company of Mrs Villain, he is often approached by single women. Not just any places mind you, but he’s always found that the same type of places suddenly show themselves to be “single women” zones.
For example, your Maximum Leader was out with the Wee Villain (aged 16 months) at the beachover the summer. Your Maximum Leader was just out for a walk in the evening to get a little exercise. He was stopped no fewer than three times by young women who wanted to coo over the Wee Villain. The Wee Villain would play “shy” and “hard to get” which only intensified the cooing of the young women. Your Maximum Leader would ask the cooing women if they had kids. The answer was the same. “No, I’m still looking for the right man.”
This caused your Maximum Leader to think. Why would a woman looking for the right man stop a man who was walking around with a baby? Well, the plainly evident reason is that at some level of that woman’s mind she knew that the man with the baby had already been shown to be the “right man” by someone. And since the man was alone, there was a chance that due to some unknown circumstance the man might be available.
This thought is in line with your Maximum Leader’s experience when dating. Indeed, many men have similar experiences when they are dating. You know the experience of which your Maximum Leader is speaking. The one when a man is single and not seeing anyone there can often be long stretches where no woman is apparently interested in him. But if a man is seeing a woman things are somehow different. If a man has decided to date one woman exclusively it is as though he is now surrounded by a mystical “taken aura” visible only to other women.
And when a single woman sees the “taken aura” she is intrigued. Why is he taken? He must have something going for him? After all, no sensible woman would date a man that didn’t have some redeeming qualities. This is a man who should be investigated further.
Yes loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader can remember a number of times when he was seriously dating a woman and he had to fight off the single women who were interested. (Well… That might be a bit of hyperbole there. But he can remember at least one time - and perhaps two (damn the alcohol!) - when he did have to fight off a woman who was all over him.) It seems as though the only sure way to be certain if a woman was single and interested was to be unavailable.
Yes you read that correctly. The only way for a man to be certain a woman is single (and interested) is for the man to be unavailable to women other than the one with whom he is in a relationship.
That is sorta weird isn’t it? Only by appearing “harmless” is the man able to truly know if a woman is single. Otherwise there is always the game. The game of “exchanging glances, buying drinks, trying to think up witty opening lines, then establishing a baseline of interest, then trying to arrange a less chance encounter.”
So there. You now have your Maximum Leader’s thoughts on this topic.
For other manly thoughts check out Phin, The Wizard, and Stiggy. For the feminine Divas view check out Kathy, Silk, and Phoenix. (And Sexy Sadie too - who refused to conform to convention but gave you a sneak peek into next week’s topic.) Also check out Nugget and Jamesyboy.
Carry on.
