Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sits up a little straighter in his chair and begins to worry a little bit when he reads that the avuncular Wen Jiabao (Premier of China) says in a press conference “We [the People’s Republic of China] have lent a massive amount of capital to the United States, and of course we are concerned about the security of our assets. To speak truthfully, I do indeed have some worries.“

(Excursus: Your Maximum Leader loves the word “avuncular.” It is so rare to see it out there nowadays. You know what else? He doesn’t think he’s ever seen the adjective used to describe the leader of the PRC. Of course it was used to describe Joe Stalin… Perhaps the word has a more sinister secondary meaning he doesn’t associate with it?)

Let’s see… The nation that holds something like $1,400,000,000,000.00 in US Treasury bonds (according to the article) tells the world press that they worry that the US may not be “creditworthy” doesn’t seem like a good thing for the US. According to Reuters, the US Treasury Bond market fell in Asia after Wen’s comments. No surprise there.

Is anyone in Washington listening to this? It is not a good thing when your major creditor tells you that you probably want to take a look at how much debt you are taking on… Call it a friendly warning.

What is your Maximum Leader saying? Of course no one in Washington is listening. The President’s rump economic team is too busy trying to make the best of the current crisis to notice that the people financing the “making the best of the crisis” are politely asking them to not make too much of the current crisis.

Nope. This is no good at all.

Does anyone know when the next major auction of T-bills is taking place? One wonders if the market for long-term T-bills will be “soft?” (NB: thanks to the magic of Google… Long-term T-bills auctioned on March 19, 2009)

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was reading today that three more members of President Obama’s economic team are being nominated to their posts. David S. Cohen is being nominated for the position of assistant Treasury secretary, terrorist financing; Alan Krueger for the position of assistant Treasury secretary, economic policy; and finally Kim Wallace has been nominated to serve as assistant Treasury secretary, legislative affairs. Interestingly enough, these three nominations (requiring Senate approval) come right after two other nominees withdrew their names from consideration.

One must wonder just how good a job the President’s economic team can possibly do when most of its members have yet to be nominated. The stimulus and the budget have to be enacted by someone. We aren’t all expecting Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to do all the work themselves are we? The problem is that all the someones who aren’t Geithner and Summers aren’t in place yet. What exactly was the transition team doing from November to January? (Did they go to Hawaii with the President-Elect?) It isn’t like they didn’t know there was an economic crisis going on. Indeed, it seems as though lots of lip service was paid to the economic crisis being job one for the new administration but little was done to make sure that all the cogs in the bureaucratic wheels were greased and ready to get the engine running.

In normal circumstances one might be willing to give the new administration a pass on having all these under secretaries and assistant secretaries ready to go. But as the administration is fond of pointing out we’re not in normal circumstances. Indeed, just last week the President’s Chief of Staff was boasting about how one has to make the most of a crisis to push through legislation that you wouldn’t usually get through. If this is such a big crisis, we can’t give the President a pass on the economic team. Sure we can still give the Administration a pass on not having nominated a assistant Secretary of Education for eraser clapping and whiteboard cleaning; but not having a Deputy Treasury Secretary for Domestic Finance is more than a little troubling.

What makes the dearth of deputy, assistant, and under-secretaries of the Treasury very disturbing for your Maximum Leader is the date of April 2.

What is going on on April 2? The G20 Summit in London that’s what. On April 2 all the leaders of all the nations that move the world economy are going to go to London to finalize agreements on what the hell we’re all gonna do about the world economy. Notice that all these agreements and understandings and communiques are going to be finalized during the summit that begins on April 2. The summit isn’t where these agreements, understandings and communiques are going to be negotiated. When the big-wigs get together it is all “Howdy, how ya doin’?” and “Hail Fellow well met.” There is some spit and polish on the final language. There is some “i” dotting and “t” crossing. But all the substance of those agreements, understandings and communiques are being worked out right now.

Yup. Junior Finance Ministers, Assistant Exchequer officials and assistant secretaries of the Treasury are meeting on the phone, in London, around Europe - whereever really trying to hash out a global approach to the greatest economic crisis to have hit the world in over 20 years (and possibly since the Great Depression - although your Maximum Leader still thinks we haven’t gotten as bad as 1982 yet… Yet…). The Brits are working overtime to make sure the summit is successful. Heck… They are inviting business leaders from around the world to help prepare for the summit.

Have you started to wonder what your Maximum Leader is wondering? He is wondering just whom exactly is voicing the position of the United States in all these run-up-to-the-main-event-events?

Let us assume that Mysty Helmgruber, the perky intern from California who worked ’round-the-clock in Eureka to insure Barack Obama got elected, is not sitting down across from the South Korean Deputy Finance Minister for Banking attempting to articulate the President’s plan for stabilizing the global credit market. Who is sitting at that table articulating the plan? (Assuming there is a plan for stabilizing the global credit market. Color your Maximum Leader doubtful on that count.)

If there are US negotiators (and your Maximum Leader earnestly hopes that there are) then they are likely very senior-level career bureaucrats. While these people are likely very knowledgeable in their fields, they are not policy makers. If they aren’t policy makers then what bloody good is their input going to be? Nothing they say will carry an weight whatsoever because they aren’t (as George W. Bush put it) “the deciders.” They are the “carry-outers.”

So in the face of a deep and worsening economic crisis the United States of America finds itself with little or no voice in the largest gathering of nations that might actually be in a position to do something useful.

Your Maximum Leader is feeling very hopey-changey right now.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is pretty sure he is the only blogger out there who can boast (if you can call it a boast) that he has blogged in the third person for going on six years. It is tough sometimes, but he does it because you, dear minion, have come to expect it.

Having said this, he isn’t sure he can keep up the third person blogging today. If he slips in and out of character - well - it happens some times.

First, your Maximum Leader should say that he’s been pretty frustrated with everything going on in political Washington. He is less frustrated by the Democrats than Republicans. What does that mean exactly? Well… It means that the Democrats are behaving much like he thought they would. The Democrats behave as they do and because your Maximum Leader doesn’t agree with their general philosophy of governance their behavior is only mildly annoying. He should throw out there that his annoyance does not keep him from watching in horror as the Democrats wreck havoc on our nation.

If a pollster were to call your Maximum Leader and ask if the President and Congress are leading the country down “the wrong track” or “down the right track” your Maximum Leader would firmly say “wrong track.” He believes the “stimulus” (aka: spending) bill was a pork-laden crock of shit that isn’t going to have the salutary effect that the President has promised. The budget the President has just proposed is even worse than the spending bill just passed.

Your Maximum Leader was, for a little over a month apparently, deferential towards the new President. He wanted to see what President Obama did and how he approached the crisis he’s facing. Your Maximum Leader did this out a (perhaps old skool) notion of “fair play.” Your Maximum Leader felt it was only fair to give give the President a chance to live up to the rhetoric of his campaign. Your Maximum Leader will not go so far as to say that he expected much of the President, but he figured it was best to give the man who handily won the election a chance. You know, elections have consequences and one shouldn’t jump to conclusions. This isn’t to say that your Maximum Leader was in that crowd of (”cough”) conservatives like David Brooks or Christopher Buckley who thought that Obama was a different sort of fellow. (As your Maximum Leader’s friend and erstwhile contributor to this space, the Smallholder will attest. He can’t believe how many times he said on the phone to Smallholder “Just because Obama doesn’t sound like a run of the mill liberal in his book doesn’t mean he isn’t a run of the mill liberal. The book is nothing more than a campaign biography. How many of those have you believed in the past?) Your Maximum Leader was pretty clear that he believed Barack Obama to be a dyed in the wool liberal who was putting on a show with his rhetoric of hopey-changeyness. But, your Maximum Leader is a pretty fair minded guy and that influenced him to try and put aside his preconceptions and see what happened.

Well… The President has demonstrated that he isn’t capable of controlling his party in Congress. The President has demonstrated that neither he nor his “team of almost rivals - and tax evaders” have no judgement concerning beginning a massive new program to nationalize health care in the midst of a major financial crisis. In fact, a sensible person must reasonably charge the President with opportunism and deceptiveness by implying that nationalizing health care is a real step towards improving the national economy. It is a real step towards financial ruin and destruction of our health care system.

Your Maximum Leader grows very weary of the whole “we’ve had no responsibility in Washington for 8 years and it will take time for us to clean things up” line. It is the go-to line for the President, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid (and all their cronies). How much longer will that line hold up? Yes, the economic crisis started under George W. Bush. The contributing factors causing the crisis are many and have been brewing for longer than 8 years. Your Maximum Leader’s not sure that Bush’s approach to the crisis was effective or well conceived. That said, essentially we have more of the same from the current administration. Doesn’t more of the same undercut the effectiveness of the whole “we’re just dealing with what they left us?” They aren’t doing anything different - only doing more of the same. Where is the change? Where is the hope? (We certainly haven’t heard much about hope now have we? (It is all going to get much worse before it gets better. At least that is what we’ve been hearing out of the White House.)

Of course, your Maximum Leader can only get but so angry at President Obama. He’s convinced that the President is not driving policy. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are driving policy. That is dangerous and bad. It is a little early to seriously throw around the whole “they are turning America into a socialist nation” accusations; but Congressional leaders are showing ever sign that they are turning in that direction. There are serious threats to individual liberty and property in the offing. Your Maxmium Leader can’t remember a more serious swing in the proverbial political pendulum in just a few weeks. Pretty soon we might have to say that President Obama has accomplished more in 100 days than LBJ accomplished in his whole Presidency. Think about that for a second.

Long-time readers of this space know that your Maximum Leader is great believer in divided government and gridlock. Gridlock is the true genius of the American Republic. Our founders knew what they were doing when they split up the branches of government and created political friction at every turn. Although your Maximum Leader isn’t a big Jeffersonian, he does believe that gridlock is the only way we can live up to TJ’s aphorism that the “government that governs best governs least.” Without gridlock our government is hell-bent for leather to actually do something. Your Maximum Leader isn’t fond of our government actually doing something…

One hopes that the Republicans can grow a pair and make some gains in 2010…

Of course, the Republicans are in bad bad shape. Your Maximum Leader’s not sure that they are in post-Watergate shape (although perhaps they are). The party has been gutted by the disasterous Presidency of George W. Bush. Republicans stuck with W through thick and thin. The Republicans got a war in the Middle East. Your Maximum Leader agreed with the starting of that war (for different reasons than those articulated by Bush and his cronies). But the war went south when Bush (and his cronies) screwed the pooch on managing the war. Then the Bushies stuck with a bad war policy for way too long. Republicans also decided to completely forgo any semblance of fiscal responsibility they might have clung to from the by-gone Reagan years. Your Maximum Leader would say that the late Congressional Republican majority spent money like the cliched drunked sailors. Alas, to say that would both insult drunken sailors as well as leave us no reference point against which to compare the current Democratic Congress. It is almost as though money is magic and this spending is an imaginary exercise in whimsy that will have no real consequences.

But your Maximum Leader digresses…

So you have a Republican party that is thought of as a bunch of liars (due to their support of the war), spendthrifts (due to the prescription drug program and allowing earmarks to get out of control among other items), and religious fanatics (from constant press reports and Democratic attacks). That combination isn’t a good one.

Now you have this internicene warfare between people like Michael Steele (the RNC chairman) and Rush Limbaugh (a radio talk show host). This intra-party warfare has been inflamed by Democrats. (And frankly the Democrats should fan the flames as much as they can. In politics, as in UFC matches, when your opponent is down, you kick him.)

Your Maximum Leader isn’t a Rush listener. He listened to Rush regularly in the early ’90s. Back then your Maximum Leader spent more time in the car with the radio on. Your Maximum Leader does recall that he always enjoyed G. Gordon Liddy’s show on WJFK in DC more. There was more talk of guns and heavy-chested hotties on Liddy’s show. Your Maximum Leader stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh one afternoon when Limbaugh made some crack about Chelsea Clinton (then about 11/12 years old) being awkward and ugly. That crossed a line with your Maximum Leader and he didn’t listen to Rush again until about 6 months ago.

From time to time during midday your Maximum Leader finds himself in the Villainmobile and the channel often tuned to the local AM radio station. Rush’s show is on at midday and since radio pretty much sucks in this area he doesn’t change the channel. (Your Maximum Leader has all the stuff to outfit the Villainmobile with XM, but he’s never installed or activated the stuff. Had it all for three years now… How sad is that? Anyhooo…)

Your Maximum Leader heard Rush on the day that he declared (recently) that he wanted Obama to fail. In the context of what Rush was saying, it made sense. If you don’t like the President’s policy proposals and you hope that they do not get enacted then you hope he fails. That is some pretty straight-forward thinking. But people have been getting all in a huff over if.

Among the people getting in a huff about it is new RNC chairman Michael Steele. Steele then says Rush is an entertainer. Steele apologizes to Rush. Democrats paint Rush as the leader of the Republican party. Rush (running with the ball) challenges Obama to a debate about the issues. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah… Yadda… Yadda… Yadda…

You know something? If there was any Republican up there on Capitol Hill out there with “onions in the bag” who could articulate a cogent policy alternative to the President (and Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid) then that person would be the de facto head of the Republican party.

Apparently no Congressional Republican has a pair and will step up. Not Mitch McConnell. Not Boehner. Not Cantor. So when you don’t have an elected Republican acting “leaderly” it devolves to whomever the Democrats and the press say is the leader of the party. Republicans aren’t in control of their destiny as long as the White House and Congressional Democrats are determining who is the “voice” of the Republican party.

Frankly, your Maximum Leader wishes there were some smart articulate conservatives out there in Congress to raise the level of debate out there. He has always thought that Rush Limbaugh (and Sean Hannity and Michael Levin) are the lowest common denominator of conservatives. Your Maximum Leader didn’t know how to put a fine point on it, but recently he thinks that he found someone else who did put a fine point on it. It was our old pal John Derbyshire who wrote that Rush and other talk show hosts are dumbing down conservatives.

Your Maximum Leader is a bit of an elitist (with probably very little reason to be). But he likes a little more intellectual discussion with his politics. He respects someone who has thought out an opinion and belief. He doesn’t want Rush Limbaugh to be the “voice of conservatism” in America. He much prefered William F. Buckley in that role (God bless him).

But until someone else gets some balls it is Rush as the voice of conservatives and leader of the opposition…

And while the Republicans are backstabbing each other and sniping at who is in charge of what, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triad will do all they can to reshape America according to their vision.

If that isn’t enough to scare someone into growing balls I’m not sure what is.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t read Pajiba for its biting and insightful political commentary. No. He reads Pajiba because he likes to keep up with movies, movie reviews, commentary on current goings-on in Hollywood and such stuff. Yes. Your Maximum Leader reads Pajiba to keep socially current.

Well imagine his shock when he reads biting and insightful political commentary on Pajiba. Well… Biting and insightful political commentary in the guise of a review of the (late and oft-lamented-in-the-Villainschloss) HBO series Rome

If you haven’t read Requiem for the Republic: Rome by Jove you need to click through and read it RIGHT NOW! Here are the first few paragraphs:

“This can only mean that the Republic has fallen.” -Lucius Vorenus
“And yet, the sky is still above us and the earth still below. Strange.” - Titus Pullo

This is a story of how democracy dies.

Rome is the mother of nations. The legend lurking at the dawn of history. The altar at which our laws and governments still worship. Every courthouse and capital echoes the ruins of that ancient city we still haunt. Legalese is still half Latin a millennium since the last native speakers died. Our senators and theirs would hardly notice the difference between each other, besides the togas and Italian suits.

Rome was a young state in an old world. Just old enough to feel confident and experienced, young enough to think it would last forever. For two thousand years, Egyptian slaves had built desert mountains for god kings. Italy was such a backwater for so long that Alexander overran the world from Greece to India, but didn’t bother hopping the Adriatic. Less than three centuries later, Caesar thought he was special. Ozymandias and all that. Empires always believe they’re eternal because men never believe they’re mortal.

They conquered through ingenuity, through a granite faith that their law was the only law. Anything outside of Roman law was barbarian. Order was their one true god, immortalized in all the identical temples and standardized roads. Rational repetition fueled the legions: men trained to fight as a single machine, gears and clockwork carved from flesh, individuality burned off in the smelter. They tamed ancient Egypt, yoked Spain and France, pillaged Greece for fertile minds. They destroyed Carthage so utterly that atomic weapons could not have improved on the job. Who now remembers the American Indians?

They were the first combination of that most potent meme of state: the imperial republic. They always insist that they rule by force for the good of the people. “For the republic!” Say it enough and you believe your own press. They were the embodiment of that ancient dichotomy of war and peace. Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. It’s lightning in a bottle, catching the fever for empire along with the spasmodic beauty of freedom. An unstable equilibrium cannot last: either the empire exhausts itself or it devours its own children. The British did the former, the Romans the latter, America’s decision is pending. Rome is the story of that devouring.

Damn it is good stuff. Go and read for the love of the Gods!

Also, if you haven’t seen Rome you need to put it in your Netflix queue or buy it. You’ll not be sorry…

(Okay… If you are a stickler for a “historical drama” being more “historical” than “drama” you might be disappointed. If you can put that behind you, you will love it.)

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will do his best to remember Igor Panarin. Who the hell is Igor Panarin? Igor Panarin is apparently a Americanologist in Russia. (During the Cold War we had “Sovietologists” on our side. What would you call their Commie counterparts in the USSR? Your Maximum Leader supposes you call them Americanologists…) Mr. (Dr.? Comrade?) Panarin has predicted the collapse of the United States… Next year.

According to the AP piece, Panarin:

…said the recent economic turmoil in the U.S. and other “social and cultural phenomena” led him to nail down a specific timeframe for “The End” — when the United States will break up into six autonomous regions and Alaska will revert to Russian control.

Panarin argued that Americans are in moral decline, saying their great psychological stress is evident from school shootings, the size of the prison population and the number of gay men.

Turning to economic woes, he cited the slide in major stock indexes, the decline in U.S. gross domestic product and Washington’s bailout of banking giant Citigroup as evidence that American dominance of global markets has collapsed.

“I was there recently and things are far from good,” he said. “What’s happened is the collapse of the American dream.”

Panarin insisted he didn’t wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar.

Just in case you don’t clicky the linky, Panarin stated that President Obama will declare martial law as the situation gets worse… Then after the martial law the US will break up into the six autonomous regions…

You know something… Your Maximum Leader wouldn’t count out anything at this point… Although, if the President declared martial law your Maximum Leader might just have to run to the hills. In the words of Patrick Swayze and Robert Stacy McCain: WOLVERINES!

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was over on Ted’s site. He saw this interesting post at the top of the page. You should click through and read about this amazing discovery. From Ted’s post:

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

Incredible.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader makes no secret of his love of Diet Coke. He does love the stuff. He has loved the stuff since he was an intern on Capitol Hill. He was a regular Coke drinker prior to his internship. During his internship the only cola drink one could be assured of finding near his offices was Diet Coke.

Well… Today your Maximum Leader learned that he shares this preference in cola with many members of the Obama Administration. At least this preference is being reported by Time. An interesting little tidbit from the piece:

Late last year, Obama’s nascent Administration worked out of transition offices in a downtown government building, which was serviced by only Pepsi-brand vending machines, according to three people who worked in the building. Two Administration officials have told me that a group of Obama aides, frustrated by the security gauntlet required to go to the corner store, stocked a refrigerator with Diet Coke in open rebellion against the available options. The pattern has continued at the White House. In his West Wing office, like his previous office at Harvard University, Summers has a refrigerator stocked with cans of the decidedly non-Pepsi beverage.

One can only hope that this shared love of Diet Coke can bring people together from both sides of the political divide. We can share a Coke, a smile and some policy advice.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader and his very good friend Smallholder had, in this space, a going debate about Gay Marriage a few years ago. Smallholder was disappointed in your Maximum Leader’s continuing adherence to marriage as a primarially religious institution from which gays should be barred. This discrimination irritated Smallholder then, and likely still does to this day. Moreover, this position has not endeared your Maximum Leader to a few gay people he knows.

So, let your Maximum Leader throw some stuff out there for you all to read over (and maybe think about). Your Maximum Leader has not changed his opinion that marriage is a fundamentally socio-religious institution that is meant to give a permenant bonded status to a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and child-rearing. Over time, this relationship as become a cornerstone of civil society. As such it has had legal benefits attached to it. Because of these legal benefits, many people believe that marriage as an institution should be open to all loving couples who want to partake of it.

Your Maximum Leader still firmly believes that marriage is a hetrosexual institution. But he understands the legal benefit argument put forward by many who disagree with him. There is a libertarian streak in your Maximum Leader that doesn’t like the state telling him that he can only allocate resources (or benefits) that he has accrued (or otherwise earned or paid for) to specific people - namely his family. If your Maximum Leader wanted to put his friend Kevin on his health insurance policy (and pay the corresponding premiums) that choice should be available to him. It is not of course, and this is one of the instances of injustice that supporters of gay marriage frequently cite.

Your Maximum Leader has, at least privately - and perhaps on this blog (although he can’t find a link right now), maintained that “the government” shouldn’t be in the business of marriage. We live in a free (at least for the moment) society where many people do not share religous beliefs. We also live in a secular state. Knowing this it seems reasonable to allow a general “civil union” be be an option for all couples who might want to get some legal benefits that currently accrue only to married people.

You might be saying “Self, my Maximum Leader seems to be making a semantic distinction here.” Perhaps he is. Perhaps supporters are making their own semantic non-distinction.

Anyhoo…

Your Maximum Leader read an interesting article on the WaPo web site the other day. Here is said interesting WaPo article: Straight Couples in France are Choosing Civil Unions Meant for Gays. Some tidbits from the piece:

The PACS [Civil Solidarity Pact] was introduced a decade ago by France’s then-Socialist Party government. Parliament approved the measure only after a fierce debate because, although its wording was deliberately ambiguous, the arrangement was understood mainly as a way for gay couples to legalize their unions even though under French law they are not allowed to marry.

In passing the law without making it specific to gays, however, France distinguished itself from other European countries that have approved civil unions or even marriage for same-sex couples. As a result of that ambiguity, the PACS broadened into an increasingly popular third option for heterosexual couples, who readily cite its appeal: It has the air of social independence associated with the time-honored arrangement that the French call the “free union” but with major financial and other advantages. It is also far easier to get out of than marriage.

…

But even though their arrangements are now socially accepted, unmarried couples living together have found they face financial and administrative disadvantages compared with their married friends. Joint income tax returns can lower the annual bill considerably. Inheritance laws make transferring property to someone who is not a legal spouse more expensive and more difficult. Dealing with the French administration can be an ordeal without legal documents attesting to a place of residence and a social status.

…

But PACS unions are also seen as more appealing than marriage because they can be dissolved without costly divorce procedures. If one or both of the partners declares in writing to the court that he or she wants out, the PACS is ended, with neither partner having claim to the other’s property or to alimony.

So by taking advantage of the PACS, French couples get the legal benefits of marriage (like transfering property, establishing residency and joint tax returns) but aren’t married. Indeed, the PACS seems to be growing in popularity throughout France.

Your Maximum Leader’s French language skills are not good enough to find out if French homosexuals are outraged because they still can’t get married - even though a substitute institution with the same legal benefits exists.

Your Maximum Leader believes that an institution similar to the PACS would be a viable option in the United States.

Carry on.

UPDATED: Our friend FLG writes in the comments: “Tangentially, couples who do get married in France must get married in a civil ceremony regardless of whether they will subsequently be married in a church or not. So, a Catholic couple will have a small ceremony at City Hall, and then go to a church for the religious ceremony. However, only the first is legal binding.” Your Maximum Leader thought he knew this fact. He also meant to make reference to France’s history (since the Revolution) of strict secularism in public affairs. Alas, your Maximum Leader often publishes ill-thought through crap on his blog so he didn’t make this point. All in all your Maximum Leader would prefer to see the US go towards a more secular approach to benefits and couple’s legal status. Religion can flourish where it is not interfered with by the state.

Carry on… (Again.)

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure how he missed George Will’s column while he was perusing the WaPo website. He was directed to a recent Will column in which Will advocates repealing the 17th Amendment to the Constitution via Ace. Here is the direct link to the meaty part of Will’s column:

The Wisconsin Democrat [the oft odious Russ Feingold - ed], who is steeped in his state’s progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold’s solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.

The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.

The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, “the executive authority” of the affected state “shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”

Feingold’s amendment says:

“No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.”

Feingold says that mandating election of replacement senators is necessary to make the Senate as “responsive to the people as possible.” Well. The House, directly elected and with two-year terms, was designed for responsiveness. The Senate, indirectly elected and with six-year terms, was to be more deliberative than responsive.

Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 — the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government.

Severing senators from state legislatures, which could monitor and even instruct them, made them more susceptible to influence by nationally organized interest groups based in Washington. Many of those groups, who preferred one-stop shopping in Washington to currying favors in all the state capitals, campaigned for the 17th Amendment. So did urban political machines, which were then organizing an uninformed electorate swollen by immigrants. Alliances between such interests and senators led to a lengthening of the senators’ tenures.

The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the electoral college as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.

Okay… Sadly your Maximum Leader excerpted more than he originally bargained for.

Huzzah for George Will. Your Maximum Leader has never been a fan of the 17th Amendment. He agrees completely with Will that severing the connections between Senators and State Legislatures has been a bad move. (Just as allowing the House and Senate to add air-condidtioning to their offices was a bad idea… Your Maximum Leader has a pet theory that Congress started to go to hell when the House and Senate office buildings were air-conditioned. Before a/c Congress met from January to May/June and then got the hell out of dodge. If you’ve ever visited (or lived in) Washington DC from July through September you know why one would want to leave. With a short legislative year, Congress got shit done and done quickly. Once it became possible to stay in relative comfort in the Nation’s capital you start to get a professional Congress that sucks…)

Anyhoo…

Senators should be selected by State Legislatures. Your Maximum Leader is confident that changing the Founders formula in this way hasn’t been a good thing…

And while we’re speaking of repealing Amendments to the Constitution…. Here are a few others we could do without…

The 26th Amendment. - Fuck the whiney 18-20 year olds. They hardly vote anyway.

The 23rd Amendment. - Fuck DC. It annoys your Maximum Leader to know that there is a law working its way through the current Congress to give DC a full vote in the House (and off-set that vote with an added vote for Utah). The District is not a state. It shouldn’t be treated as a state. It is expressly not a state in the Constitution. If you want to have full represenation in Congress and you live in DC you should move to Virginia or Maryland. Your Maximum Leader might be in favor of shrinking down the actual size of the District and giving the rest of the city back to Maryland. (Just as Arlington County was given back to Virginia.)

The 22nd Amendment. - Hell. If voters are stupid enough to want someone as President for more than 8 years they should be able to vote for that person for more than two terms. Your Maximum Leader is against all statutory term limits. We have elections to limit terms in office. (Your Maximum Leader can think of precisely two men for whom he’d vote to see a third term. The first is George Washington, the second is Abraham Lincoln. Although in all honesty, a Lincoln third term would have depended on how a full second term would have gone. So that is a tenative endorsement.)

And although he wouldn’t like to see it repealed, he’d like to see one modification to the first section of the 14th Amendment. Your Maximum Leader would like the first line to read something like this: All persons born to citizens of the United States and those naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The more Libertarian readers of this blog might want your Maximum Leader to advocate the repeal of the 16th Amendment. Your Maximum Leader believes we need income taxes - if for no other reason than the modern world economy will not tolerate crushing tarriffs.

So there…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been following the story surrounding the NY Post editorial cartoon concerning the shot monkey and the stimulus package. Apparently the NY Post has sort of apologized for possibly offending people. According to the piece:

After two days of protests, the New York Post apologized Thursday for a cartoon that some have interpreted as comparing President Barack Obama to a violent chimpanzee gunned down by police. But the newspaper also said its longtime antagonists exploited the image for revenge.

The qualified apology didn’t mollify at least some of the cartoon’s critics, who said they might continue protesting Friday.

The newspaper posted an editorial on its Web site Thursday evening saying the cartoon was meant to mock the federal economic stimulus bill, but “to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.”

The piece was posted hours after 200 picketers chanting “Boycott the Post! Shut it down!” marched in front of the paper’s office, saying the cartoon echoed racist stereotypes of blacks as monkeys.

The editorial said that “most certainly was not its intent,” adding that some media and public figures who have long-standing differences with the paper saw the cartoon “as an opportunity for payback.”

Calling them “opportunists,” the editorial said: “To them, no apology is due.”

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who helped lead the outcry over the cartoon, criticized what he called the paper’s “conditional statement” of regret.

“Though we think it is the right thing for them to apologize to those they offended, they seem to want to blame the offense on those (who) raised the issue, rather than take responsibility for what they did,” he said in a statement.

The tabloid, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., is known for its feisty attitude, provocative headlines and conservative outlook — a mix that has garnered hundreds of thousands of readers, but also criticism over the years.

The newspaper had stood by the cartoon, which its editor called “a clear parody” about the death of Travis, the chimp that Connecticut police killed Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner. Editor-in-chief Col Allan had said the intent was to ridicule Washington’s efforts to revive the economy.

The drawing by longtime Post cartoonist Sean Delonas, published Wednesday, shows a dead chimp and two police officers, one with a smoking gun. The caption reads, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”

Humm… Was someone just saying that you can’t have a dialogue on race when one side always throws around accusations of racisim? Oh yeah. That someone was your Maximum Leader earlier this week…

Your Maximum Leader saw the cartoon and thought it was amusing. He never associated the cartoon with Obama at all. Why? Because President Obama didn’t have anything to do with writing the spending bill… It was Congress… So Congress is the monkey in this case… (Or is Congress an infinite army of monkeys clanking away on their typewriters until they come up with a spending bill…)

People…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader’s blood pressure was raised a little yesterday after watching some of (and reading some of) new Attorney General Eric Holder’s comments on race yesterday in a speech to staff at the Justice Department. Your Maximum Leader will just use the AP story he saw yesterday as a starting off point. According to the AP:

Eric Holder, the nation’s first black attorney general, said Wednesday the United States was “a nation of cowards” on matters of race, with most Americans avoiding candid discussions of racial issues. In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” Holder said.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, but “we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”

Humm… Your Maximum Leader wonders why we don’t discuss race? Could it be because the voices of dissent on racial topics are silenced by the omnipresent threat of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who are ready to brand anyone with an unpopular opinion an inveterate and unrepentant racist? It seems to your Maximum Leader that the problem is not that we are cowards and can’t speak about race; the problem is that you can’t have a conversation about race when the past actions of one conversant discourages future action of another (possible) conversant. Who wants to engage in a dialogue on race when one believes that the reward for discussion will be social stigmatism and marginization as a “wacky racist?” Perhaps this might be cowardice as Holder defines it.

Your Maximum Leader notices an affinity for many liberals to celebrate “speaking truth to power.” But that affinity doesn’t seem to extend to serious discussions about race. If one says that the economic misery of many inner city blacks could be the result of the breakdown of the traditional civil structures of the historic black community (like the family and strong churches); then one is chastized and marginalized because you are against non-traditional families (of any sort) or a religious nut.

Perhaps we should encourage all who want to talk about race to put aside childish ways of thinking about race. The most childish way of thinking about race in America is summarized as if you disagree with the leaders of the “black community” then you are a racist. This is really no different a mindset than your Maximum Leader’s son’s mindset that if he doesn’t get his way then the world is unfairly persecuting him. We need to recognize real persecution where it exists and act to end it. We also need to actively call out and marginalize those who will claim persecution where none exists.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader reads on Joan’s site that the bust of Winston Churchill loaned to the United States by the UK and displayed in the Oval Office under President Bush has been returned to the British by President Obama. (BTW, your Maximum Leader also voted in Joan’s poll.)

This makes your Maximum Leader sad, but what really do we expect. Our new president is making a break with the past. That includes office furnishings. According to the various linked pieces, Churchill has been replaced with Abraham Lincoln. Your Maximum Leader has no problem with replacing Churchill for Lincoln in the Oval Office. But it seems as though this whole exchange has been handled badly. It also seems from the tone and tenor of the articles that the diplomatic community is all atwitter at what the return of the bust might actually “mean.”

Your Maximum Leader, for his part, thinks that this whole (very minor) incident means nothing more than Obama’s people don’t know how to do things in a way that don’t upset our allies and friends.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wonders what the hell it is with the people President Obama wants to appoint to his team of rivals. Lets see… Treasury headed by a man who failed to pay self-employment taxes that he was advised by his employer to pay. (He also accepted reimbursments of taxes he failed to pay.) Then you get the former Senate Majority Leader and Health and Human Services Secretary designee hasn’t paid taxes on goods and services provided to him. (Who’da thunk Tom Daschle wouldn’t pay the taxes - and somehow not be tainted by an ethics investigation and trial - like Ted Stevens.)

Now you get the “Chief Performance Officer” designee (Nancy Killefer) declaring that she hasn’t paid taxes for domestic help and is withdrawing her nomination.

Great jeezey chreezey. Isn’t failure to pay your taxes a crime? Didn’t they get Capone for that stuff? Your Maximum Leader might (just might) have been okay with giving one appointee a “pass” in the spirit of bipartisanship (and peace and love and all that hooey). But we’re up to three now. Where the hell is the honor that Bill Richardson had by just bowing out early? This is a serious problem that no one (in the mainstream media certainly) seems to be too worked up about. Heaven forfend what we would be hearing if these people were McCain appointees.

Of course, your Maximum Leader is only focusing here on the tax problems of Obama’s people. There is the whole Bill Clinton issue for Hillary. Does anyone think that Bill is going to show restraint when it comes to accepting donations to his foundation? Your Maximum Leader doesn’t.

All these problems seem to be blythely passed over by most people who should be reporting and causing a fuss. Afterall the economy is in the crapper and we can’t be bothered with focusing on this small stuff… Hey! Your Maximum Leader has an idea for you… How about we just make the whole problem better by just giving everyone a year without taxes? That way people who wouldn’t ordinarially pay their taxes (like many in the President’s cabinet-to-be) wouldn’t have to worry about getting caught not paying their taxes. Normal tax-paying citizens would get the benefits that potential cabinet level officials are already getting. Since we are borrowing more money than anyone can actually conceptualize, what is a few gazillion more dollars? What are our creditors going to do if we decide not to pay? Invade? Fart in our general direction?

All in all your Maximum Leader would say that President Obama isn’t off to a very good start.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees that Chief Justice Roberts swung by the White House to re-administer the oath of office to President Obama. The scuttlebutt is that they were doing a little CYA to make sure that no one thought that he wasn’t president because the oath was flubbed at the inauguration. So, your Maximum Leader supposes that we are only now beginning the Obama Administration. (Will they ask for a few extra hours out of the term of the next president as some “make-up” time?)

Anyhoo…

Your Maximum Leader might have inadvertently given offence to our friend (and supplier of the greatest damned home-made pickles in the world) Polymath. Perhaps a little clarification is required on my comments on being patriotic and wishing President Obama well. To try and put a fine point on it. On the first day of a president’s term when it is a time for general celebration, we should wish the new president the best. For patriotic and polite reasons. Your Maximum Leader is sure that the criticism will start soon - indeed one can argue that it should begin right away over the decision to close Gitmo (a decision that your Maximum Leader feels must be taken due to US courts now granting rights to prisoners there that they shouldn’t have - so your Maximum Leader is in agreement with the overall decision; but the devil will be in the details here. Your Maximum Leader suggests that they put the prisoners in a jet that happens to fly into a flock of birds and isn’t piloted by someone as skilled as Chesley Sullenberger III.). Also the selection of Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary should be a cause for some concern. Your Maximum Leader thinks at this point that Geithner should just step aside and they should choose someone else. (NB to minions: Do governors of the Federal Reserve not go through a confirmation process? If they do why didn’t this tax stuff come up earlier? Is the Senate a bunch of slackers who only investigate the big jobs? No need to answer that last question…)

Your Maximum Leader feels that Obama’s critics who are warning of creeping socialism are a little premature. So far Obama’s team is just playing out the creeping socialist plan that was left to them by the Bush Administration. It is yet to be seen what Obama’s team will suggest. Your Maximum Leader isn’t too hopeful, but he will wait until he sees the plan.

Moving along…

Another minion, Maggie, asked in the comments of the last post if your Maximum Leader would serve in an Obama cabinet of “adversaries” if asked. That is a good question. It is one that your Maximum Leader contemplated for a little while. Your Maximum Leader can confidently say that if President Obama asked him to be an informal policy advisor; he would gladly accept the job. Advice is free and the president should get lots of it from different perspectives. If President Obama asked your Maximum Leader to serve in a cabinet level job (or other appointed position) he would likely agree to do so. He says likely because when the president asks you to serve your country you should try to do so. Of course, if it was clear that your Maximum Leader could not in good conscience carry out the policies of the president then he would have to resign and have the president find someone else. Your Maximum Leader is not expecting a call from President Obama (or Rahm Emmanuel) asking him to serve in an Obama Adminstration. Lucky him.

One last item…

Your Maximum Leader hasn’t commented on the whole Caroline Kennedy thing. It appears as though she has removed herself from consideration from appointment to the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. Your Maximum Leader didn’t ever comment on Caroline Kennedy wanting the seat. She is, he feels, no more or less qualified than hundreds of others who seek elective office around the country. He did object on one basis however. Because she is a Kennedy, and her family has a history of serving in elective office, she should only attempt to get into the Senate (or House or where ever) through direct election. Your Maximum Leader would hold her to a higher standard in that respect than others. Because of who she is she should not “back into” office but should actively campaign for it. It doesn’t appear to be an issue not however…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader heard from a minion (or two) who wondered if he (that is your Maximum Leader) was going all soft and squishy on President Obama. They indicated that the recent post about Obama and Nixon’s ghost was awfully kind to both men. Then yesterday your Maximum Leader wished President Obama success.

Well… Before you all clamor to revoke your Maximum Leader’s conservative credentials (such as they are) let him state a few things. Any patriot should wish President Obama success. Love of country should outweigh partisan considerations - especially when Obama hasn’t done anything yet. Think about it, he hasn’t been in office for a day. There is nothing substantive to be critical of right now. Surely no one wants Americans to suffer simply because of partisan considerations.

That said, my idea of what will be successful and President Obama’s are not likely the same. Your Maximum Leader has been pleasantly surprised by many of President Obama’s cabinet appointments. The President seems to be reaching out and soliciting the input of all. Indeed, if your Maximum Leader may be frank, he believes that President Obama will have more trouble keeping hold of the reins on his own party in Congress than he will from Republicans.

So… Although your Maximum Leader wishes President Obama the best, it doesn’t mean that everyone should just roll over and do whatever the President wants. We didn’t all pledge to serve him. Questioning the President and encouraging debate should be the job of the press, thoughtful members of his own party, and Republicans. Your Maximum Leader was pleased to read Juan Williams’ piece today in the Wall Street Journal. Williams asks us all to judge Obama by his performance. The juicy part of Williams’ piece:

The importance of a proud, adversarial press speaking truth about a powerful politician and offering impartial accounts of his actions was frequently and embarrassingly lost. When Mr. Obama’s opponents, such as the Clintons, challenged his lack of experience, or pointed out that he was not in the U.S. Senate when he expressed early opposition to the war in Iraq, they were depicted as petty.

Bill Clinton got hit hard when he called Mr. Obama’s claims to be a long-standing opponent of the Iraq war “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” The former president accurately said that there was no difference in actual Senate votes on the war between his wife and Mr. Obama. But his comments were not treated by the press as legitimate, hard-ball political fighting. They were cast as possibly racist.

This led to Saturday Night Live’s mocking skit — where the debate moderator was busy hammering the other Democratic nominees with tough questions while inquiring if Mr. Obama was comfortable and needed more water.

When fellow Democrats contending for the nomination rightly pointed to Mr. Obama’s thin proposals for dealing with terrorism and extricating the U.S. from Iraq, they were drowned out by loud if often vacuous shouts for change. Yet in the general election campaign and during the transition period, Mr. Obama steadily moved to his former opponents’ positions. In fact, he approached Bush-Cheney stands on immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperate in warrantless surveillance.

There is a dangerous trap being set here. The same media people invested in boosting a black man to the White House as a matter of history have set very high expectations for him. When he disappoints, as presidents and other human beings inevitably do, the backlash may be extreme.

Several seasons ago, when Philadelphia Eagle’s black quarterback Donovan McNabb was struggling, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said the media wanted a black quarterback to do well and gave Mr. McNabb “a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve.” Mr. Limbaugh’s sin was saying out loud what others had said privately.

There is a lot more at stake now, and to allow criticism of Mr. Obama only behind closed doors does no honor to the dreams and prayers of generations past: that race be put aside, and all people be judged honestly, openly, and on the basis of their performance.

Your Maximum Leader believes that Mr. Obama will start (soon one hopes) to be judged on the basis of performance. Your Maximum Leader still believes that the bar has been set so high with all of Obama’s campaign talk of hope and change that as the President has to make tough calls and be political he will start to crush the hopes and dreams that many of his supporters ascribed to his presidency.

Let us see what Obama does now that he has the job. Then we can critique or laud him - as appropriate.

Carry on.