Tattle, Tattle, Tattle.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader read with mixed feelings the following article off the AP news wire: Students Rewarded for Tattling.

Now first off, the jist of the article centers how many school districts have created incentives for students to disclose the plans of their fellow students to do "things." Bad "things." Like go on murderous rampages at school for instance. Or doing drugs in the bathroom. Or bringing guns to school.

Now, your Maximum Leader is all for doing what we can to avoid murderous rampages in schools. But he isn't sure about giving out candy, pizza, money, and prime parking spaces are proper incentive. One would hope that at some point the students themselves would catch on and do the right thing if they knew of another student planning a school slaughter.

But you see, your Maximum Leader is of two minds on the whole "snitching" thing. On the one hand, he doesn't want to reward a "snitch" who betrays his friend's confidence. But on the other hand, he is okay with "espionage" and the bribing of people to get information you want. In the end, isn't the spy who gives the information a symbol of ignominity?

Here is a case for you on this general philosophical issue...

Your Maximum Leader is acquainted with a man. Let us call him Joe. Joe is a bear of a man. He is 6 foot 7 inches tall. He must weigh at least 325 pounds. And he is physcially the strongest person your Maximum Leader knows personally.

As it turns out, he also has a BA from Cornell University, and ran his own business for a number of years. He is smart, well (and soft)-spoken, and a generally plesant guy to be around.

And did your Maximum Leader mention that he is a convicted felon who has spent one year in a medium security prison and is now on a work-release from a minimum security prison? His work-release will continue for at least another 18 months.

His crime? Contempt of Court.

You see, Joe is somewhat exceptional in his family. His family are poor decendents of slaves (as Joe once told your Maximum Leader). He doesn't know where he got his brains (as he will point out). But he got them in a huge powerful package. He used his physical prowess to get to a good college, where he made the most of his completely subsidized education. But many of his kin are not gifted either physcially or mentally.

Indeed one of his relations is a thief and serial father of bastard children. And not a particularly adept one (thief that is) at that. The thief has spent more than a little time in "the poke." One time, a little over two years ago, this relative of Joe's offered him a nice plasma TV at a deeply discounted price. Joe was suspicious at first, but familiarity and a desire to help out a relative who needed money to support his kids wore down his suspicions and he bought the TV. A few weeks later the police came to Joe's house. They asked about the relative. They checked out the TV. It was stolen.

The police asked Joe from whom he got the TV. Joe's response, "I don't recall." The police and the Commonwealth's Attorney put the squeeze on Joe. They knew he was covering for his relative. Just come out and testify. Joe's memory continued to fail him.

Joe says that he encouraged his relative to do the right thing and turn himself in. Ask for a plea deal or something. But the thief, true to his thieving nature, did not.

In the end, Joe got 3 years for Contempt. Joe's business (really self-employment with a sometimes partner) ended. He sold many (most) of his assets to pay his legal fees. And is now on a work-release program. He is trying to figure out how he is going to get himself started again when his time is up.

So your Maximum Leader asks you, should Joe have tattled? Should he have saved himself? Should he have testified in a case he knew would send his repeat offender relative to "the poke" for a very very very long time? Or did he do the right thing?

You all can ruminate on this one for a while and get back to your Maximum Leader after you've thought it out.

Carry on.