The Project

Patrick Poole, at Front Page Magazine, has published a document written by the Muslim Brotherhood. It appears to be an outline of their strategy — and it makes chilling reading. Follow the link above to get more information about the Muslim Brotherhood and this document.

I’ve reproduced the document below. Read it carefully, as it provides a lot of insight into our enemy…

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent and Merciful

S/5/100 report

1/12/1982 [December 1, 1982]

Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy

(Points of Departure, Elements, Procedures and Missions)

This report presents a global vision of a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy [or “political Islam"]. Local Islamic policies will be drawn up in the different regions in accordance with its guidelines. It acts, first of all, to define the points of departure of that policy, then to set up the components and the most important procedures linked to each point of departure; finally we suggest several missions, by way of example only, may Allah protect us.

The following are the principal points of departure of this policy:

Point of Departure 1: To know the terrain and adopt a scientific methodology for its planning and execution.

Point of Departure 2: To demonstrate proof of the serious nature of the work.

Point of Departure 3: To reconcile international engagement with flexibility at a local level.

Point of Departure 4: To reconcile political engagement and the necessity of avoiding isolation on one hand, with permanent education and institutional action on the other.

Point of Departure 5: To be used to establish an Islamic State; parallel, progressive efforts targeted at controlling the local centers of power through institutional action.

Point of Departure 6: To work with loyalty alongside Islamic groups and institutions in multiple areas to agree on common ground, in order to “cooperate on the points of agreement and set aside the points of disagreement”.

Point of Departure 7: To accept the principle of temporary cooperation between Islamic movements and nationalist movements in the broad sphere and on common ground such as the struggle against colonialism, preaching and the Jewish state, without however having to form alliances. This will require, on the other hand, limited contacts between certain leaders, on a case by case basis, as long as these contacts do not violate the [shari’a] law. Nevertheless, one must not give them allegiance or take them into confidence, bearing in mind that the Islamic movement must be the origin of the initiatives and orientations taken.

Point of Departure 8: To master the art of the possible on a temporary basis without abusing the basic principles, bearing in mind that Allah’s teachings always apply. One must order the suitable and forbid that which is not, always providing a documented opinion. But we should not look for confrontation with our adversaries, at the local or the global scale, which would be disproportionate and could lead to attacks against the dawa or its disciples.

Point of Departure 9: To construct a permanent force of the Islamic dawa and support movements engaged in jihad across the Muslim world, to varying degrees and insofar as possible.

Point of Departure 10: To use diverse and varied surveillance systems, in several places, to gather information and adopt a single effective warning system serving the worldwide Islamic movement. In fact, surveillance, policy decisions and effective communications complement each other.

Point of Departure 11: To adopt the Palestinian cause as part of a worldwide Islamic plan, with the policy plan and by means of jihad, since it acts as the keystone of the renaissance of the Arab world today.

Point of Departure 12: To know how to turn to self-criticism and permanent evaluation of worldwide Islamic policy and its objectives, of its content and its procedures, in order to improve it. This is a duty and a necessity according to the precepts of shari’a.

THE FIRST POINT OF DEPARTURE:

Know the terrain and adopt a scientific methodology for [The Project’s] planning and execution.

a- Elements:

Know the influential factors in the world, whether they act as Islamic forces, adverse forces, or neutral forces.

Use the necessary scientific and technical means for planning, organization, execution and follow-up.

b- Procedures:

Create observation centers in order to gather and store information for all useful purposes, if need be relying on modern technological methods.

Create centers of study and research and produce studies on the political dimension of the Islamic movement.

c- Suggested missions:

Draw up a map of [religious and ideological] doctrines in the world to have a global vision from 100 years ago to our era, and analyze the current situation in light of that configuration, taking account of changes both happening and predicted.

Draw up a map of doctrines of the Muslim world.

Draw up a map of Islamic movements in the Muslim world.

Carry out successive political and scientific studies in varying Islamic areas, those which apply more particularly to current events.

Carry out a scientific study which addresses the history of contemporary Islamic movements, and use it.

THE SECOND POINT OF DEPARTURE

To demonstrate proof of the serious nature of the work.

a- Elements:

Clarity of the principal objectives of the dawa in the eyes of all, as well as clarity of the temporary objectives, necessitates exploitation, channeling and orientation of the energies.

Devote sufficient effort to the service of the workers [for Allah] and coordinate their efforts to the sole and same objective.

Devote sufficient time.

Spend money to the extent possible.

b-Procedures:

Exploit all the energies of the workers to the service of the dawa, each at his level (the criterion of efficiency, given that each must be devoted to the task to which he’s assigned).

Mobilize the greatest possible number of supporters and officials.

Collect money efficiently, control expenses and invest in the general interest.

c- Suggested missions:

Carry out a survey of workers (appropriate men and appropriate location)

Establish schedules with the hours of workers and specialists and use their efforts with good judgment and on time (appropriate effort at the right time).

An engagement with economic institutions adequate to support the cause financially.

THE THIRD POINT OF DEPARTURE

Reconcile international engagement with flexibility at the local level.

a- Elements:

To define the guidelines that everyone [worldwide] must follow.

To leave a margin that provides sufficient flexibility at the local level for the issues that do not conflict with the general lines of the global Islamic policy.

b- Procedures:

The Movement, at a global level, will define the Islamic domain and issues in a general way which will require the engagement of all according to previously defined priorities.

The local leadership will define local issues that come within their prerogative, according to the principle of flexibility and according to previously defined priorities.

c- Suggested Missions

Worldwide Islamic engagement for a total liberation of Palestine and the creation of an Islamic state is the mission which falls to the global leadership.

To establish a dialogue at a local level with those who work for the cause according to the global political lines of the Movement. It is up to the local leadership to define the shape of that dialogue.

THE FOURTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To reconcile political engagement with the necessity of avoiding isolation, on the one hand, with permanent education and institutional work on the other.

a- Elements

Liberty to function politically in each country according to local circumstances, without however participating in a process which makes a decision which would be contrary to the texts of Shari’a.

To invite everyone to take part in parliament, municipal councils, labor unions and other institutions of which the membership is chosen by the people in the interest of Islam and of Muslims.

To continue to educate individuals and generations and to guarantee the training of specialists in various areas according to a previously designed plan.

To construct social, economic, scientific and health institutions and penetrate the domain of the social services, in order to be in contact with the people and to serve them by means of Islamic institutions.

b- Procedures

To study the varied political environments and the probabilities of success in each country.

To plan specialized study missions which will concentrate on useful areas such as communications, the history of Islam, etc.

To conduct feasibility studies concerning various institutions and create them according to priorities established in each country.

c-Suggested Missions

To conduct studies relating to the experiences of political Islam and to draw lessons from them.

To give an Islamic policy perspective on the pressing questions of the day.

To keep questions of local importance such as issues concerning workers, unions, etc. within an Islamic framework.

To create a certain number of economic, social, health care and educational institutions, using available means, to serve the people within an Islamic framework.

THE FIFTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To dedicate ourselves to the establishment of an Islamic state, in parallel with gradual efforts aimed at gaining control of local power centers through institutional action.

a- Elements

To channel thought, education and action in order to establish an Islamic power [government] on the earth.

To influence centers of power both local and worldwide to the service of Islam.

b- Procedures

To prepare a scientific study on the possibility of establishing the reign of God throughout the world according to established priorities.

To study the centers of power, both local and worldwide, and the possibilities of placing them under influence.

To conduct a modern study on the concept of support for the dawa and Islamic law, and more particularly on the men of influence in the State and the country.

c- Suggested Mission

To draw up an Islamic Constitution in light of efforts deployed up to now.

To draw up Islamic laws, civil laws, etc.

To work within various influential institutions and use them in the service of Islam.

To use the work of economic, social, and other specialized Islamic institutions.

THE SIXTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To loyally work alongside Islamic groups and institutions in various areas and in agreement on a common ground in order to “cooperate on points of agreement and put aside points of disagreement”.

a- Elements

To coordinate the Islamic work in a single direction as will permit the laying of the foundations of the growth of Muslim society and dedication to the power of God on Earth.

For each to work according to his capacities in his chosen field and to master it, with loyalty and coordination of effort.

b- Procedures

To study the true nature of Islamic movements, to evaluate their experiences and draw up plans to initiate collaboration among them.

To avoid creating new Islamic movements in a country which already has one; there will be but one movement, serious and complete.

c- Suggested missions

To coordinate the efforts of all those working for Islam, in each country, and to establish good contact with them, whether they work in individuals or in groups.

To reduce the differences that exists between workers for Islam and to resolve their conflicts according to shari’a.

THE SEVENTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To accept the principle of temporary cooperation between Islamic movements and nationalist movements in the broad sphere and on common ground such as the struggle against colonialism, preaching and the Jewish state, without however having to form alliances. This will require, on the other hand, limited contacts between certain leaders, on a case by case basis, as long as these contacts do not violate the [shari’a] law. Nevertheless, one must not give them allegiance or take them into confidence, bearing in mind that the Islamic movement must be the origin of the initiatives and orientations taken.

a-Elements:

To combine all efforts against the supreme forces of evil in accordance with the principle that one must “battle one evil with a lesser evil”.

To limit the collaboration to the leadership or to a limited number of individuals in order to maximize the benefit and minimize the possible drawbacks.

To work from perspective of the objectives previously defined for the dawa.

b-Procedures:

To make a study to evaluate the areas with the object of mutual assistance between Islamic and other movements and draw lessons from it.

To study the areas which allow cooperation, and define the boundaries.

To study the philosophy and plans of other movements.

c- Suggested Missions:

Each country should study the possibility, in the future, of strengthening internal collaboration.

THE EIGHTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To master the art of the possible on a temporary basis without abusing the basic principles, bearing in mind that Allah’s teachings always apply. One must order the suitable and forbid that which is not, always giving a documented opinion [according to shari’a]. But we should not look for confrontation with our adversaries, at the local or the global scale, which would be disproportionate and could lead to attacks against the dawa or its disciples.

a- Elements:

To evaluate the education of individuals and not to excessively use typical modern education that does not correspond to reality, which is devoid of flexibility and could have grave consequences such as the conflict between individuals for a simple comment or a simple failure.

To give a documented and scientific view, in the form of speeches, communiqués and books, that bears on events important to the Ummah.

To avoid the Movement hurting itself with major confrontations, which could encourage its adversaries to give it a fatal blow.

b-Procedures:

To carry out a study to evaluate the experiences of Islamist movements in order to avoid their fatal errors.

To develop educational methods that are at the same time exemplary, realistic and true to our principles, in order to bestow a flexibility sufficient to permit the facing of reality.

c-Suggested Missions:

To develop initiation programs for the faithful and proceed with sensitivity to the foundation of past experience.

To prepare individuals according to modern educational methods.

THE NINTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To construct a permanent force of the Islamic dawa and support movements engaged in jihad across the Muslim world, to varying degrees and insofar as possible.

a-Elements:

To protect the dawa with the force necessary to guarantee its security at the local and international levels.

To make contact with all new movements engaged in jihad, everywhere on the planet, and with Muslim minorities, and to create links as needed to establish and support collaboration.

To maintain jihad and awakening throughout the Ummah.

b-Procedures:

To form an autonomous security force to protect the dawa and its disciples locally and worldwide.

To study movements engaged in jihad in the Muslim world, as well as among Muslim minorities, to better understand them.

c-Suggested Missions:

To build bridges between movements engaged in jihad in the Muslim world, and between Muslim minorities, and to support them insofar as possible within a framework of collaboration.

THE TENTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To use diverse and varied surveillance systems, in several places, to gather information and adopt a single effective warning system serving the worldwide Islamic movement. In fact, surveillance, policy decisions and effective communications complement each other.

a-Elements:

To make the policy decisions to collect important and precise information.

To diffuse Islamic policy so that it is largely and efficiently covered by the media.

b-Procedures:

To create a modern surveillance system by means of advanced technology (possibly created at the research centers mentioned earlier).

To create an effective and serious media centre.

c- Suggested Missions:

To warn Muslims of the dangers that threaten them and the international conspiracies directed at them.

To give our views on current events and future issues.

THE ELEVENTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To adopt the Palestinian cause as part of a worldwide Islamic plan, with the policy plan and by means of jihad, since it acts as the keystone of the renaissance of the Arab world today.

a-Elements:

To provide an Islamic view on all areas, problems and solutions relative to the Palestinian question, based on the precepts of Islam.

To prepare the community of believers for jihad for the liberation of Palestine. [One can lead the Ummah to realize the plans of the Islamic movement above all if victory is ours], if God wills it.

To create a modest nucleus of jihad in Palestine, and to nourish it in order to maintain the flame that will light the road toward the liberation of Palestine, and in order that the Palestinian cause will endure until the moment of liberation.

b-Procedures:

To collect sufficient funds for the perpetuation of jihad.

To conduct a study of the situation of Muslims and the enemy in occupied Palestine.

c-Suggested Missions:

To conduct studies on the Jews, enemies of Muslims, and on the oppression inflicted by these enemies on our brothers in occupied Palestine, in addition to preaching and publications.

To fight against the sentiment of capitulation among the Ummah, to refuse defeatist solutions, and to show that conciliation with the Jews will undermine our Movement and its history.

To conduct comparative studies on the Crusades and Israel, and [the victory that will be that of Islam].

To create jihadi cells in Palestine, and support them in order that they cover all of occupied Palestine.

To create a link between the moujahadin in Palestine and those throughout the Islamic world.

To nourish a sentiment of rancor with respect to the Jews and refuse all coexistence.

THE TWELFTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To know how to turn to self-criticism and permanent evaluation of worldwide Islamic policy and its objectives, of its content and its procedures in order to improve it. This is a duty and a necessity according to the precepts of shari’a.

a-Elements:

To conduct constructive self-criticism, in order to avoid pitfalls.

To proceed with constant evaluation, on a scientific basis, to permit the further construction of policies.

To improve Islamic policies and to take profit from past experiences must be a clear and essential objective.

b-Procedures:

To evaluate current practices and profit from past experience.

To ask officials in the various countries to give their views on direction, methods and results.

c-Suggested Missions:

To produce an official document on global Islamic policy.

To make the countries, the officials and the people aware of that policy.

To begin to apply the policy, to evaluate it annually and to improve it if need be.

66%

If you’ve been paying attention to the news over the past few days, then you know that the American left has a new issue they’re trying to beat up President Bush over: a leaker (whom I’d like to see strung up) disclosed that the NSA has been conducting a massive data-mining project, looking for patterns in the telephone numbers that U.S. phone users (the majority of whom, presumably, are U.S. citizens) call. The purpose of this data-mining is to identify people who are calling on terrorists or terrorist support organizations, so we can do something about potential attacks.

I’d write something about the stupidity of blasting those who are protecting you, but Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse has done a much better job of that than I could:

THE HYSTERICAL DRAMA QUEENS OF THE LEFT:

The news that billions of phone records are stored in a faceless, lifeless, dumb brute of a computer data base has set off a tantrum on the left the likes of which have not been seen in this country since the Civil War. Whipped into a frenzy of outrage not by any actual “spying” or “eavesdropping” by the NSA’s data mining of call records but rather by the idea that the government now has the exact same information available to it that your phone company has had all along, Members of Congress as well as the left side of the blogosphere have given in to hysteria and have allowed their imaginations to take flight about the program, positing all sorts of sinister scenarios where we are a hair’s breadth away from some kind of third world dictatorship.

Their reasoning (or unreasoning) goes something like this; if the NSA wanted to, it COULD abuse the program. Or, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL for mischief by the government if the program’s parameters were violated. The point, of course, is not to demonstrate anything untoward that has actually happened but rather to flaunt a self-image of themselves as saviors, crucified for their beliefs, manning the battlements, waving the bloody shirt, DEFENDING DEMOCRACY while the rest of us peasants look upon them with doe-eyed admiration and worship.

I’m sick of it. I’m sick of the exaggerations about the “danger” that the country is becoming a dictatorship, a word they throw around with the practiced ease of someone who has no idea what an actual dictatorship looks like. I’m sick of the ginned up outrage against anything and everything the Administration has done in the past 5 years to protect us. I’m sick to death of these immature, emotionally unstable, intellectually dishonest philistines whose foot stomping tirades have begun to resemble the wailings of teenage girls who put on melodramatic, angst ridden histrionics over the tiniest of slights.

Read the whole thing, please.

In this morning’s news comes something that I confess I was surprised to read: the majority of Americans (according to a snap overnight poll conducted by ABC, that well-known conservative lapdog organization) are “not bothered” by the NSA’s data collection and mining efforts. 66% of those polled said they wouldn’t care if their own calls were collected and analyzed.

I think the ferocity of the left’s attack fooled me into thinking that they represented Americans in general. I’m relieved to see that’s not the case.

The details of this poll have some other interesting nuggets of information. As you might expect, there was a large difference in the results between those who self-identified as conservatives versus liberals — but a surprise in there for me is that even amongst Democrats, 45% find the NSA program acceptable.

Something the poll doesn’t mention, but which I’ve read elsewhere, is that a substantial portion of the American public misunderstands what the NSA program actually is. This misunderstanding is not surprising given the misleading — and sometimes outright false — descriptions that the lamestream media has published. In particular, an interesting percentage (I believe the number was 38%, but I can’t lay my hands on that report right now) believe that the NSA’s program includes monitoring conversations (it does not; it only records the phone numbers called). If that’s accurate, the level of support in ABC’s poll is even more remarkable, and even more out of whack with the left’s attacks.

Thinking politically for a moment, this implies that the Democrat’s reflexive Bush-bashing on security topics is not likely to serve them well at the ballot box. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Kennedy: more bashing, please!

Mystery Pictures

Take a good look at the three photos at right.

As usual, if you click on the small photos, you’ll see a larger version (much larger in this case).

Can you guess what was photographed?

These are but three samples of the thousands of high-quality photographs of the surface of Mars, taken by JPL’s Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC). The archive of these photos is just one dozens of such archives on the various NASA-related web sites.

I’ve been on a mailing list for these photos for several years; I always look forward to clicking on a few of the links. It’s a lot like sight-seeing here on Earth — wondrous things are there for you to look at, marvel at, learn about, and enjoy.

In the case of Mars in particular, I’ve learned that it is a far more complex place, geologically speaking, than I would ever have imagined (and these photos show that very nicely). Often I have a great deal of trouble even imagining what process created some of the bizarre things I see — so different than anything I’ve ever seen on Earth (though I’ve seen some weird things here, too!).

Gas Prices

One of my regular readers emailed me with link to this ABC news article. He dismissed the price comparisons with other products on the basis that gasoline is a neccesity, while the other products were luxury items. But he found the inflation-adjusted gasoline price “interesting", by which I assume he means “surprising”.

I’ve been talking with friends and relatives about this “interesting” fact for months (and even mentioned it in a previous blog post). The surprising part for me is how much trouble people seem to have accepting that this is so — it appears to me that something in the human mind is “stuck” on absolute price comparisons. The inflation analysis is one of the few things about the gasoline price controversy that’s subject to unambiguous (and uncontroversial!) analysis, and many people have done exactly that. The result is uniform across all sources that I’ve found: in inflation-adjusted dollars, gasoline has not yet reached new all-time highs. It’s getting close, mind you — but it’s not there.

But I will share something else with you that I find very interesting, and its encapsulated in the graph above right that I stole shamelessly from this excellent post on the equally excellent libertarian Coyote Blog.

This graph shows what it has cost us (in inflation-adjusted dollars) over the years to drive 100 miles. This is an even better reflection of how gasoline prices actually affect us. This graph looks very different than the simply inflation adjusted graph (which is also in that post at Coyote Blog) because, on average, our cars today get much better gas mileage than they did in 1980.

All of the above facts appear to me to be undeniable. One can quibble about precisely how inflation is measured, but surely the fact of inflation is accepted by everyone. Ditto gasoline mileage. So one might see minor variations in these charts, but the gist will be the same: in real terms, gasoline is not near it’s all-time 1980 highs yet. If I do the math, today’s $3.50/gallon gas would have to be $5.60/gallon to match those 1980 highs — taking into account both inflation and the better mileage.

So why do people seem to have so much trouble accepting this? Any theories out there?

EU Constitution

Estonia has become the 15th country to ratify the European Union Constitution. France and the Netherlands have already rejected it (by referendum), so the commonly held notion is that further votes are useless. However, in actual fact the EU constitution takes force when the last of the 25 EU member countries ratifies, so each countries ratification is important. Further, the rules governing when the EU constitution takes force require only that the member countries ratify the constitution; the rules do not specify how the ratification is to occur. In particular, it is not certain that the failure of referendums actually prohibits ratification by the government (although both France and the Netherlands have said they will abide by the referendum results).

I downloaded the English text of the EU constitution a few months ago, and made a good faith attempt to read it. It is over 400 pages long, very dense, rich with jargon — and looks less like what this American thinks of as a “constitution” and more like a liberal, politically correct, meandering manifesto. I got through perhaps 100 pages before I just could not take it anymore…

My predictions on the EU are these:

— Even without ratifying the “constitution", the EU is likely to collapse under its own weight. Take just one requirement: the translation of all EU documents into the native language of every member country. Already this is causing delays of years in the legislative and treaty efforts, as there aren’t enough translators to do the job. And at some point the people in the member states are going to wake up and realize that the EU’s top-heavy bureaucracy is serving its own interests above those of the member countries — and there will be a revolt (hopefully of the ballot-box kind).

— If the EU constitution is ever ratified, the process described above will accelerate tremendously — but a revolt will be vastly more difficult to accomplish.

— If the EU constitution is ever ratified, everything the EU tries to accomplish will be held up by endless court cases arguing about the interpretation of the constitution. If you think the squabbling in the U.S. is bad, just wait until you see what happens when the lawyers have over 400 pages of “guidance” to argue about!

The cartoon above right was sent to me by one of my friends in Estonia. He tells me that the caption reads (translated) like this: “We’ll get it ratified, turn up sleeves and start to bump off the ones who are not with us…” I think that cartoonist has the bureaucracy nailed perfectly — getting it ratified by any means necessary is precisely their agenda. And if they manage to do so, then watch out! So far as I can tell by my correspondence with several Estonians, the general population really doesn’t seem to care very much about the EU constitution, or about other aspects of the EU, such as adoption of the Euro. It’s clear from the polls (and my friends confirm this) that popular support for adopting the Euro has declined — but it’s also true that in general people there have only a vague understanding of the issues, pro and con. In other words, it’s just like here in the U.S. — only a few crazy people actually care enough about these things to become well informed. For example, none of my Estonian friends — whether ethnic Russians or Estonians — even claim to have read the EU constitution. One friend tells me that many members of parliment — the legislative body that votes on ratification in Estonia — have not read the EU constitution that they just voted to ratify. Apathy runs deep, apparently.

Egyptian Blogger Arrested

Yesterday I sent the email below to the Egyptian Embassy (embassy@egyptembdc.org). I have not received any response.

The single best source I’ve found for news on Alaa and the other arrested bloggers is Sandmonkey (whose blog is an excellent source of Middle Eastern news and perspective in general).

Please join me in boycotting Egyptian goods — we don’t need our government’s help to impose trade sanctions!

Arrest and detention of Alaa

Dear sirs:

My already low opinion of Egypt’s government has reached a new low with its recent despicable actions in arresting and detaining Alaa (along with several other bloggers). Whatever false face you place on it, your behavior is transparently the simple, thuggish suppression of free speech.

I condemn you.

I am unilaterally imposing trade sanctions on Egypt until and if Alaa and other bloggers are released: I will not purchase any goods containing any component that was manufactured or grown in Egypt. I have sent emails to all of my local, state, and federal governments urging them to do the same. I am publishing this email on my blog to ask my readers to join in this effort. And I am calling on all my fellow bloggers to do the same.

Sincerely,

Tom Dilatush

aka SlightlyLoony

www.jamulblog.com

Note to Sheila

I posted this note on the Yahoo Field Spaniel group in reponse to the latest edition of Sheila’s puppy journal:

I’m very sad to see the end of the puppy journal; I’ve looked forward to the wit and the wonderful side stories (like the kids at school and their reactions to the puppies). I hope you’ll take Kathy’s suggestion and update this a few months down the road. Plus I’d really like to hear the end of the washing machine saga…

You said one thing in your journal that I feel compelled to comment on: “…I feel I have done a very good job of getting these guys ready for interesting and active lives."

Miki (whom many readers will know is one of the puppies from your latest litter) is the third field spaniel we’ve gotten from you. He joins Lea and Mo’i (both still going strong), whom we got 7 and 5 years ago, respectively. I don’t know this, but I suspect we’re amongst the most experienced recipients of Sheila Miller’s puppies.

So I think I can speak with some authority on the subject.

Each of the puppies you (Sheila) have raised for us have been simply wonderful; two have grown up to be extraordinary adult dogs — cherished companions, without any health or temperment issues, and even enthusiastic competitors (in agility).

Debbie and I are considerably more ancient than Sheila. We both grew up on farms, surrounded by dogs; we had dogs before discovering field spaniels. Before getting Lea (our first field spaniel), we did a lot of research about breeds — and breeders — before picking Sheila and her litter. Since then, we’ve met lots of field spaniels, especially when we visited Colorado for the nationals a couple of years ago. Our dogs stand out in the field spaniel crowd (we may be just the teensiest bit biased in that assessment), and we are certain that you (Sheila) deserve a good part of the credit for that.

So here’s a hug just for you. And thank you, ever so much, for being the source of so much joy for us…

Puppy Journal

Hope turned three on Cinco de Mayo, the puppies are 12-weeks old today, I am 48 tomorrow, and it is time to put this tome to bed.

There wasn’t a journal entry last week because I try to support small and local businesses whenever possible. That means that Mike my server guy went fishing and left everything on auto pilot. The pilot crashed and I was without Internet for several days. :-) Remember all those weeks ago when I wrote about my washer? I had a call yesterday from Dennis the appliance guy saying he had the part. I was in Reno. Who knows how many weeks it will take to coordinate a visit. The only person lonelier than the Maytag repairman is this woman in Battle Mountain, NV waiting for him to show up. :-)

When last I wrote, Bogey (white boy) moved to New Berlin, WI, Miki (blue boy) moved to Jamul, CA and Emmy (purple girl) moved to Poway, CA. The three remaining puppies came to school with me last Thursday so I could get them to their after school vet appointment on time (2nd set of shots). It was a pretty great day. My math students were given their assignment and told that we would take the puppies outside as soon as everyone finished. Great motivator! :-) Due to a string of anti-dog administrators, it has been about 10 years since I’ve been able to bring a dog to school. I almost forgot what an effect they can have even on jaded high schoolers. Many girls just wanted to hold them and several boys told me they just wanted to jump in their pen with them. :-) When we had them outside, they didn’t hesitate to get down on the ground with them. Rural schools aren’t perfect but we generally have good kids. However, we do have our troubled youths just like any school.

We also have a number of students (usually boys) who are living here with relatives in order to get them out of a bad home life with their parent(s) or to get them away from a drug and/or gang culture. It isn’t unusual for me to butt heads with these kids until they bend to my will. :-) Once they do, we get along very well. I have a boy who is a particular challenge to me, his grandparents, and his P.O. He loved those puppies. He tried to stuff Clancy (green boy’s new name) into his backpack (in a kind and gentle way) but he really took to Lucy (pink girl). He recited poetry to her and sang her love songs. He got down on all four and play-bowed and wiggled his butt for her. He answered his math problems correctly. His behavior reminded me that there is a little boy in him. On those days I have a hard time liking him, I will remember how he was with the puppies.

My fourth period class began with two boys puffed up and ready to fight (spring mating season). They sulked in their desks and didn’t interact with the puppies. What the puppies did was defuse their classmates. Normally, a situation like that would affect the entire class with students taking sides and engaging in off-task, nonproductive behaviors. All these kids knew was that there were puppies to hold and hug. One girl asked one of the sulking boys, “Do you want to hold a puppy? You’ll feel better.” He didn’t but the class did.

Conversations that day centered around stories of their own pets. They all wanted to take pictures of the puppies with their camera phones. They told me it was the best day ever. It was such a good day, I’m thinking about talking to my principal about raising Lucy as a therapy dog.

Saturday was another trip to Reno. Mercy and Picabo had appointments for acupuncture and a post-birthing adjustment respectively. Yellow Boy was going to meet his new family and head home. Yellow Boy is now “Rex” and is settling in (and disrupting!) his new family’s home in La Mirada, CA.

Then today I drove to Elko to meet Debbie to return Picabo to her and pay her for the lease. I show-groomed Picabo and told Debbie not to put any more weight on her. Her coat is coming in and I think she will be just beautiful in a month or two.

There are two puppies in my house. Pink Girl will be Wolftree’s Stardust and I am calling her Lucy (in the sky with diamonds…). She is the black bitch and I won’t lie and say it was an easy decision to keep her. Purple Girl (Emma) is more my kind of girl - shorter coupled and an unflappable attitude. Lucy has a lot of very nice features and I eventually made the decision to let Purple go. Lucy still has a white frosted face (stardusted) and her front is worrisome. I keep looking at Juno’s front and ask myself if that is Lucy’s front. She moves beautifully and effortlessly for a 12-week old and sometimes she stands and stacks herself so nicely I tell myself not to worry. The rest of the time however… Well, we will just see how she grows up. The fact that she is black is another worry. If I can’t keep my liver dogs from bleaching red, what hope do I have for a black dog? :-)

The other puppy is Green Boy and I have been calling him Clancy this week. That name seems to be sticking. He was hands down my students' favorite puppy. He is happy and outgoing. He is boisterous. He is all boy. He is still waiting for the right family to call. He needs a home where he will get to go out and do things (like meet people) but (like a lot of boys) he also needs a structured home so he knows his boundaries. He is pure pet with his freckled face, one white foot, tan smudged wrists and ankles and tan butt (not tan under the tail but the whole butt).

I worry about keeping two puppies for too long. The things I have done to socialize my litter now need to be done with each individual puppy. I can’t do that well and I worry that all of my hard work will unravel as these two get older. Debbie and I talked about splitting them up for a week or two. That would be great if we each had one puppy for one week and then swapped for the next week.

As I reflect on the last 12 weeks of life with puppies, I feel I have done a very good job of getting these guys ready for interesting and active lives. I have no complaints about them. The four that have been placed live with wonderful people. For me though, these were 12 of the hardest weeks I have ever gone through and there really isn’t any end in sight. I was already exhausted when they were born (school in upheaval) and it went downhill after that. I have shed many tears over whether or not everything would get done. The experience was such that I am definitely stepping out of breeding for awhile. I have three dogs over the age of ten (10.5, 11.5 and 13) and three dogs over the age of six (6, 7.5, 7.5). I have a 3-year old who forgot her flip finish. In three years my old dogs will most likely be dead and my veteran dogs will be old. I will look at Lucy and see if the world and I need another Field Spaniel. Right now the ones I have need a little more attention from me.

Time for a group hug! Everyone hug and kiss your old, young, and in-between dogs! :-)

Sheila Miller

Wolftree Acres

Nevada, USA

sdmiller@the-onramp.net

Fourteen Commandments

In my morning reading, I stumbled on these handy-dandy “Fourteen Commandments of Political Correctness", which originated at neo-neocon and Gates of Vienna (two most worth blogs that should be on your regular reading list).

The Gates of Vienna comments:

Political correctness is a corrosive ideology that has eaten its way through most of the major institutions of Western culture, leaving them hollowed out and weakened in the face of the Great Islamic Jihad. Our enemy is filled with righteous zeal, ready to die for his beliefs, and has no doubt in the superiority of his religion. We Westerners, with our self-deprecatory posturing and theology of self-loathing, have inadequate spiritual defenses against this onslaught.

Let’s take them one at a time:

1. America is uniquely evil.

Well, this certainly seems to fit the reflexive America-bashing (blame America first!) of the American left. Witness the left’s opposition to taking down Sadaam Hussein on moral grounds, or their support of the despicable and disgusting Hugo Chavez, or even the New York Times rising to the defense of poor Zarqawi in his video outtakes. Yup, by their lights America is uniquely evil. We can’t possibly have a noble purpose for deposing Sadaam Hussein — it had to be Halliburton and the oil!

2. America is never justified in defending itself.

This follows from (1) quite naturally — if America is evil, then of course any defense of America is aiding and abetting evil. And, again, the American left’s reflexive opposition to any defense — especially a preemptive defense — is easy to observe.

3. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.

I’ve noted myself that the left’s definition of multi-culturalism is really that all cultures are equally worthy — not the simple tolerance the term might lead you to expect. This is related, I suspect, to the left’s apparent extreme discomfort with judging behavior — and the consequent tolerance and acceptance of even the most perverted behavior (such as NAMBLA, run-of-the-mill sexual predators, and the general idea of rehabilitation). Translated into the behavior of nations and civilizations, this discomfort with judgment leads to declaring the moral equivalence of any culture — and it’s only a small step, and a very politically correct small step at that, to declare that your own culture is inferior to all those others.

How does anyone persuade themselves of such nonsense?

4. The Earth would be better off without human beings.

I’ve seen this in several rants from the left, I believe always in the context of what Rush calls “environmentalist wackos” — what I’ll call the blame-humans-first crowd. In their perfect world, Mother Nature would be allowed to do her thing without any “interference” by humans. Never mind that humans are themselves a product of evolution, and that their actions are just as much part of the fabric of evolution as the actions of any other species. Never mind the indisputable facts that the vast majority of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, and that only the tiniest percentage (thousandths of a percent of them) were “caused” by humans even under the most biased interpretation of the record.

5. Making a profit is always immoral.

From this week’s news, the flap over Exxon’s profits provides an immediate example. But this commandment seems not to be absolute. Hilary’s remarkable profits on futures seems to be ok. Teresa Heinz-Kerry is forgiven her company’s profits. It’s only certain kinds of profit that are immoral, apparently — and I’ve never figured out how the decision is made, or (more interestingly) who makes it.

This commandment needs tweaking.

6. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.

Oh, absolutely — this is clearly a central tenet of political correctness. The very opposite of Ayn Rand-ism, and the very essence of extreme socialism. Every time I go for a drive, the consequences of this commandment are displayed before me — with every parent’s car wearing a bumper sticker that says “My child was citizen of the year at XXX school!”. It would be unfair to single out one child per year to recognize some extraordinary achievement — it might hurt the self-esteem of all those other kids. No individual excellence, no competition, no individual recognition; all this is replaced by transparently, laughingly false universal recognition.

7. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior.

Many widely-publicized cases amply illustrate this one. A recent example is the jurors in the Moussaoui case who found that his upbringing, wherein he was subjected to racial slurs, was a mitigating factor. Very politically correct, that point was. Rejecting the notion of personal accountability could be another politically correct commandment: “People misbehave because of their background, not because of a choice they made."

8. Policies informed by Judæo-Christian principles are inherently suspect.

Hmmm. This does seem to jibe with leftish behavior, but…I’m not sure its really any different than (1).

9. Conservatives are hypocrites; liberals are sincere.

Well, of course! Isn’t it perfectly obvious that any conservative viewpoint (or libertarian, for that matter) is nothing more than a well-spun selfish and personal perspective? Whereas liberal viewpoints are all selflessly motivated.

What crap! And how accurately it skewers the pretensions of the left…

10. There are no acts of God; there are only acts of Government.

Oh, my. From last year, Hurricane Katrina wasn’t a natural disaster, but rather just the introduction to a government failure. President Bush’s tax cuts aren’t responsible for jobs growth; the successful Clinton government programs produced all those. Such are the leftish beliefs, and they fit very nicely with this politically correct commandment.

11. We defend the right to free speech for ourselves, but anyone else whose speech hurts our feelings must be censored.

Neo-neocon added this (and the rest) to the original 10 politically correct commandments from Gates of Vienna. This is closely related to (9) above, but it certainly rings profoundly true. It’s ok for the left to scream accusations that Bush is dumber than a stump, and that Karl Rove is involved in a bazillion fantastical conspiracies, but Viet Nam veterans voicing skepticism of Kerry’s service details — that’s a no-no. And by the way, Kerry still hasn’t release his service record!

12 In any conflict between a third-world nation and a first-world nation, the third-world nation is always right.

Oh, absolutely! There are a couple of corollaries to this one: America is the only first-world nation, and the United Nations is always right (despite the vast oil-for-food corruption scandal, the unpunished rapes by U.N. employees, the disastrous Palestian “camps", and…well, make your own list).

13. Tyranny in third-world countries is not our concern unless the US (or Israel) can be blamed in some way.

Hah! Methinks neo-neocon was slightly tongue-in-cheek on this one, and yet…there are enough examples that jibe with this one to cast some doubt on that.

14. All criticism or disagreement with any policy of a third-world nation, culture, or person is, by definition, racism.

Oh, yes. Any time I’ve criticized Islam, however gently, I can routinely expect to be accused of racism — along with the rest of the leftish cant. This seems closely related to (1) and (3).

I can recall a few conversations I’ve had with left-leaning folks, unarmed with this handy-dandy set of commandments but nonetheless stumbling on a few of them myself. The most interesting parts of these converstations came when I proposed what I called a “liberal guiding principle", which was quickly denied, and then I challenged the liberal to come up with a counter-example.

For instance, I recall a conversation with a former colleague — a rabid Democrat of the rancid New York variety — wherein I proposed that the liberals had a guiding principle of the moral equivalency of America’s culture and any other culture in the world. He quickly denied it, I suspect because said like that it sounded unpatriotic, or even ludicrous. But when I challenged him to name a culture that he believed was inferior to ours, he could not do so! We went several rounds on this one, as I proposed candidate cultures of my own (radical Islam, Mexico’s Aztlan movement, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.). Each and every time, he proclaimed my candidate inferior cultures as at least equal, and sometimes superior to our own. And yet he still rejected my hypothetical guiding principle. Interesting, though a little sad and scary in the end…

What do you think about these commandments of political correctness? Do they ring true for you?

Just Disgusted

Political blogging will be light for the next couple of days. I’m suffering from an overload of incompetence from our news services lamestream media — I could scarcely find a fact (let alone anything like complete or balanced coverage) amongst the “news” stories of the Kennedy story, Porter Goss’s resignation, and the Rumsfeld/Ray McGovern flap. And I know that the small percentage of Americans who pay any attention to the news at all will find their “facts” from these lamestream sources.

Sigh. This sort of thing can get me to feeling blue, and pessimistic about the future of representative democracies.

As usual, the blogs offer the most complete and balanced coverage. I recommend Wretchard’s coverage of the Rumsfeld/Ray McGovern flap for your reading this morning — I’ll bet you learn a lot when you read it, even if you’ve watched or read every single lamestream media story about it.

Wretchard: winner.

Lamestream media: losers.

Rabbit in Decline

For many months the number one way that people have found my blog is by searching for images of rabbits on Google Images. An unexceptional photo of a rabbit in my backyard has been the winner, quite consistently.

Until this month.

If you’re unfamiliar with “referrals", that term refers to some information that your web browser gives my blog when you visit: the address of the web site that gave you a link to my blog. If you found my blog by searching on Google, Yahoo, etc., or if you clicked on a link in another blog or in a news story, your web browser tells my blog the address of those places. On the other hand, if you got to my blog by typing in the address manually, or by a favorite or bookmark, then your browser doesn’t tell my blog anything. So referrals basically are a look at how new people find my blog. On a typical day, about 20% of the visits to my blog come from referrals, and the other 80% from people who come back on their own.

Actually the rabbit referral decline started on April 27, when the number of referrals precipitously declined, and has stayed low ever since (not a one yet today, for example, where “normally” I’d have ten or so by this time of the morning). I have no idea why this should be so, as when I do a Google Images search for “rabbit", my photo still shows up in the 200s, just as always. Somehow the searchers of the world (for these rabbit referrals came from all over) have changed their habits in perfect harmony.

So far for May, the top referrals have been highly variable; different each day, and changing throughout the day — which is more what my intuition would lead me to expect.

I’m happy to see the rabbit in decline.

Another pattern holds with referrals that’s interesting for this amateur photographer: over 95% of all referrals to my blog come from searches on Google Images. The rabbit was king for a long time, but there are at this point several thousand other images available on my blog — and almost of thousand of these have been the targets of a Google Image search that resulted in a referral to my blog. I wonder what percentage of Google searches are for text versus images — I really don’t have any idea. I know that my own searches are way over 90% text, but I don’t know if that pattern holds across the general population of Googlers. But I’d bet that my blog’s referral proportions (more than 20:1 image searches to text searches) is way out of whack with the general Google searches — and I’d sure like to know why that is.

Any enlightening comments would be much appreciated…

Moussaoui Verdict

Personally, I can’t get too excited about the Moussaoui verdict; I don’t much care whether he’s executed or incarcerated forever (though I admit to some concern about the “forever” part, if some true-blue barking moonbat ever has any control over that). But Peggy Noonan — a commentator I greatly respect, though I often disagree with her — raises an interesting point on this subject:

From Peggy Noonan, on OpinionJournal:

How removed from our base passions we’ve become. Or hope to seem.

It is as if we’ve become sophisticated beyond our intelligence, savvy beyond wisdom. Some might say we are showing a great and careful generosity, as befits a great nation. But maybe we’re just, or also, rolling in our high-mindedness like a puppy in the grass. Maybe we are losing some crude old grit. Maybe it’s not good we lose it.

No one wants to say, “They should have killed him.” This is understandable, for no one wants to be called vengeful, angry or, far worse, unenlightened. But we should have put him to death, and for one big reason.

This is what Moussaoui did: He was in jail on a visa violation in August 2001. He knew of the upcoming attacks. In fact, he had taken flight lessons to take part in them. He told no one what was coming. He lied to the FBI so the attacks could go forward. He pled guilty last year to conspiring with al Qaeda; at his trial he bragged to the court that he had intended to be on the fifth aircraft, which was supposed to destroy the White House.

He knew the trigger was about to be pulled. He knew innocent people had been targeted, and were about to meet gruesome, unjust deaths.

He could have stopped it. He did nothing. And so 2,700 people died.

Certainly I agree with Ms. Noonan that Moussaoui’s greatest crime — if you’re judging him in the context of a criminal, as we were in this trial — was his failure to act to save those 2,700 Americans. She uses this to make a point about execution versus life in prison, but I’m going to take us down a different path.

Consider for a moment if we had been judging Moussaoui as a soldier on the opposing side in a war. In that case, nobody would have expected an enemy soldier to disclose his knowledge of an impending attack. Indeed, if an American soldier captured by an enemy were to voluntarily make such a disclosure, we would consider that to be traitorous behavior. So why would we expect Moussaoui — someone who clearly thinks of himself as a soldier for whom the United States is his enemy — to voluntarily (for we did not torture him) make such a disclosure? Just because we chose to try him in our criminal courts isn’t going to change any of his beliefs. But if we’re judging a citizen or resident of the United States as if they were a criminal, then we ascribe a duty to that person to behave in a way that doesn’t harm other citizens and residents. But no enemy soldier would ever be subject to such an expectation.

This observation leads to an uncomfortable thought: that here’s yet another reason why it was inappropriate to use the civilian criminal courts to prosecute Moussaoui. Uncomfortable, in this case, because my “base passions” tell me to punish Moussaoui in any way I can — and in a military context, this hateful element of Moussaoui’s behavior would likely not merit punishment. But I think the reality is that Moussaoui deserves to be treated as an irregular enemy combatant — like a spy or guerrilla warrior — and not as a common criminal. This does not mean that we were obligated to treat him as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions — those conventions very explictly cover only regular, uniformed soldiers. The past behavior of the United States has been sometimes to execute such irregular soldiers when they are caught, and sometimes to apply lesser penalties. For example, in World War II, when the German Nazis landed such irregulars in Florida (by submarine), they were caught, tried by military tribunal, and six of them executed (two were given lighter sentences because they cooperated in the prosecution). The real benefit of the military tribunal is that the defendants are treated as what they are — enemy operatives — in the context of the war they’re engaged in.

If Moussaoui had been tried by military tribunal, I don’t know what the outcome would have been. Perhaps it would have been the death penalty, perhaps not. I believe a military tribunal would have been more fair both to Moussaoui and to the citizens of the United States, and I wish that’s what we had done.

Now pardon me while I fantasize about personally stomping Moussaoui’s face into mush with my hobnailed boots, just before I bury him alive beneath the new World Trade Center…

Rotten Apples

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece of commentary today, and I’m shamelessly ripping off their (totally appropriate) title for it: “Rotten Apples”. The core of this piece is the price that Florida’s kids — and all the future employers who would like to hire them — are paying in order that the teacher’s union keep the status quo. The setting:

From the Wall Street Journal ($):

On Monday the unions in Tallahassee bullied all but one Democrat and four Republicans in the state senate to kill a school voucher bill that has already had a sterling record of success for thousands of children in districts with failing public schools. If that decision isn’t reversed by Friday, one of the most heralded school reform measures anywhere in the country will be dismantled, and 775 school kids, 90% of whom are minorities, will be returned to the warehouses that are failed inner-city schools. A related voucher program that serves 18,000 learning disabled kids is also in jeopardy.

The program at issue is Governor Jeb Bush’s seven-year-old “Florida A+ School Accountability and Choice Program.” For the first time, schools have been graded on the reading, writing and math progress made by the children they are supposed to be teaching. (Imagine that.) Any school that received an F in two of four years is deemed a failure, and the kids then get a voucher to attend another school, public or private.

The rest of the piece is a very worthwhile read if you’re a Wall Street Journal subscriber. For those who aren’t, here is a summary of the rest of the points it makes:

— Jeb Bush’s program has produced dramatic improvements in the worst of Florida’s schools, unlike any of the past union-backed plans (smaller classes, higher teacher pay, higher funding, etc.).

— Two schools in the state have received an F, and the kids in those schools got vouchers to go elsewhere. Those kids have made dramatic academic advances.

— The Florida State Supreme Court ruled that Jeb Bush’s program violates the “uniformity clause” of the state constitution, because the voucher kids are getting a better education than the public school kids. WTF!?! The court apparently wants all the kids to have an equally bad education.

— The teacher’s union has enormous political “pull", and that was on full display during this battle. The union’s pull derives entirely from the money (from union dues) it gives to the pols. In one particularly flagrant example, the state senate’s GOP leader (who received campaign contributions from the teacher’s union) bucked his party and voted against a referendum that would have overridden the court ruling. His fellow Republicans have removed him, but the damage is done; the union wins this round.

I can’t say it better than the WSJ did:

We’re not sure whom to hold in highest contempt here: the four Republicans who buckled to union pressure, the Democrats who voted en masse against the interests of their own constituents, or the unions that pretend their political actions are in the interests of “the children” — except when that conflicts with their own economic self interest.

Ouch!

Miki Journal

There are those who will say that we deserve anything we might get, after bragging on our puppy the way we did earlier: “no accidents, sleep through the night”. These past four nights we’ve had our comeuppance: Miki is no longer sleeping through the night, darn it (but still no accidents in the house!). Last night was the worst of all, with several yapping and yowling sessions, all seemingly timed perfectly to wake us just after we’d “finally” gotten to sleep. And we thought Miki would be sleeping like a log after a strenuous evening class! Debbie and I were befogged zombies this morning until we drank our extra large, extra strong coffee. Now we’re merely zombies…

Yesterday evening Miki attended his first puppy class. He was a very attentive student, especially once he figured out that food was involved (that took, oh, six or seven seconds). One thing surprised me about him: he was not easily distracted by the other goings-on — he was focused entirely on the treats. And the places from whence they came). He’s figured out that treats comes from someplace — jars, treat bags, etc. — and that you can go straight to the source if mom or pop isn’t carefully watching.

To be serious for just a moment (that stops with the next paragraph, don’t worry)…Miki seems to us to be quite a bit quicker and brighter than Mo’i was as a puppy. Neither of us can remember Lea’s puppyhood with enough clarity to be certain of a comparison with her. But we remember Mo’i being distinctly “lunky", and slower than we expected to learn things. That doesn’t seem to have been an issue in the long haul, as he’s still training (mainly for agility), and is now doing very well. But as a puppy…'twas a different story. If the difference holds through adulthood (e.g., if puppy “brightness” translates into adult “brightness"), then Miki holds considerable promise for agility training…

Consistent with our introductory class (sans puppy), most of the learning in “puppy class” is being done by us human folk, not the puppy. For example, last night we learned the proper way get your puppy to sit. Basically this involves a set of complex ceremonial gestures and offerings of “high value” treats (cubed smoked chicken breast, rare prime rib, French gorganzola, etc.). If we perform the gestures exactly correctly, and if our offering is of acceptable quantity and quality, then our puppy will condescend to grace us with a brief “sit”. At least, that’s the theory.

At right above you can see my lovely bride Debbie, going through some of the ceremonial gestures and making offerings. You can also see the calculating expression on Miki’s face — this is while he’s deciding exactly how infrequently he can actually do something we desire without impeding the flow of ceremony and offerings. Debbie got way more exercise than the puppy, especially for one particular ceremony we practiced at length, wherein we pranced about in front of our observing puppy, acting like we got an electric shock each time our feet hit the ground. Our trainer told us that this behavior would help teach our puppy not to be distracted, but we all knew the truth: this was really entertainment for our puppies — by looking foolish and amusing our puppy, we could entice them into sitting for us (after all, it’s more comfortable to sit while watching entertainment!). And it seemed to work with Miki; to all appearances, he greatly enjoyed our performance. And he sat. Briefly.

At far right is one of Miki’s classmates — a little ball of energy, a mini Australian Shepard (I think). She was extraordinarily hard to take pictures of, as she was almost always in high-speed motion — nearly all of my pictures (mostly taken at 1/90th) came out like this one. The left-hand picture is of one of the other “dog parents” and her daughter — I just thought her daughter was especially cute when she got all bundled up in a big sweatshirt…

Previous Miki Journals: [1]

And here are all of Miki’s classmates — an adorable crop of puppies, and of very varied shapes and sizes:

Ethanol Futility

Recently there has been a lot of hoopla — some of it originating, unfortunately, from our President — about ethanol and its potential for helping us become energy independent.

It’s a load of bull.

The only people who really ought to get excited about ethanol are those who will benefit financially from its production — they’ve got a genuine reason for joy in the federal ethanol mandates, present and proposed. The rest of us should be plotting how to defeat the politicians who handed us this mess the next time they come up for re-election.

Here are the key problems with ethanol:

— When ethanol is used as an additive to gasoline, the car using that formulation gets lower gas mileage — 25% to 30% lower, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. That means that a car using an ethanol and gasoline mixture uses more gasoline than a car using gasoline with MTBE (the alternative oxygenate). That’s right, folks — if we drive with ethanol, we’ll use more foreign oil, not less.

— When ethanol is used as an additive to gasoline, the price of that mixture is higher than gasoline using MTBE. And because we’ll use more of it to drive the same distance, the real cost is even higher.

— Unless the price for ethanol increases drastically (which of course we’ll pay for with higher pump prices), the U.S. cannot produce enough ethanol to be independent of foreign sources. So…on top of all the other problems, we’ll be adding a new foreign dependency — on ethanol!

See here for a good primer on all these fun facts.

I don’t suppose our politicians will let facts get in the way of good sound bites like “energy independence” and “renewable energy”. Nah, that would require a dramatic advance in their collective and individual IQs…

Puppy Physics

Miki is our new field spaniel puppy. He’s also a very cute physics laboratory, perfect for exploring one of the abiding mysteries of puppy physics, to wit: how the “output” of a puppy (the guzzoutta, in technical terms) can exceed the “input” (the guzzinta).

Anybody who has owned a puppy has personally witnessed this mysterious phenomenon. You feed your puppy a certain amount of food, water, and assorted pieces of your home and belongings (the guzzinta), and your puppy produces puppy poo and puppy pee (the guzzoutta, and two of the foulest smelling substances ever discovered by science). The mystery? The guzzoutta weighs more, and occupies more volume, than the guzzinta. And this would appear to violate some deeply cherished laws of physics, such as Newton’s Fifth Theorum of Guzz, which states that guzzinta equals guzzoutta.

I’ve searched the Internet high and low, and I have not found any explanation for this puppy phenomenon. Nobody seems to know how puppies — those cute, adorable little things — can possibly produce so much guzzoutta from so little guzzinta. One speculation is that the puppy is actually secretly eating your furniture or walls when you’re not looking, but most people would notice their dining room table disappearing, so that explanation seems unlikely to me. Another speculation is that puppies “mow” your carpet a fraction of an each every day, but after a few weeks of that you’d be down to the padding — and at least some people would notice that, so again that seems unlikely.

My personal theory is that puppies have a power heretofore unknown to science: the power of poo-o-synthesis, which is like photosynthesis in plants, but not involving sunlight and without the attractive part. Poo-o-synthesis, I postulate, is a process wherein the puppy’s body combines guzzinta with the carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air to form guzzouta. The foul smell is related to the accidental production of methane and other short-chain aromatic hydrocarbons, and the sulfur compounds formed from pollution in the air. There’s one element of poo-o-synthesis that I haven’t yet figured out, though: where’s the energy come from? In photosynthesis, it’s the sunlight that provides that crucial energy. In poo-o-synthesis, that energy must come from something else…

May Day

Today is May Day, an ancient pagan holiday celebrating the return of spring — hijacked in the 20th century by the Communists, changing its meaning (for any student of history, at least) to something perverse and evil. I’m sure this day was chosen with care for the national boycott organized by illegal immigration advocates. It can’t be an accident that this holiest day of socialism was picked for the day of the boycott. Probably a good part of that is the fact that this protest has been hijacked, to some extent, by the proponents of Aztlan and the notion that the American southwest was “stolen” from Mexico, and should be returned.

That’s but one of the reasons why this boycott provokes very mixed feelings in me. Another is that in general I support open immigration — but only for immigrants who genuinely want to assimilate into American society and culture. Many — perhaps most — of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. today have no intention of becoming U.S. citizens permanently, or of assimilating. They’re here to exploit an economic opportunity, after which they are going to return home. They are experts at working the system of freebie benefits our liberal government has put in place, they send billions of dollars home every year, and they refuse to become an integral part of American society.

And today they’re going to walk off the job, and refrain from buying anything.

Some fraction of the illegal immigrants — a minority, unfortunately — are the kind immigrants that I believe should be freely allowed into the United States. These are the folks who see America as the promised land, the ones who want to move here permanently and become Americans, the ones who see American citizenship as a highly desired objective. I would have no objection to those folks putting on a boycott, if they believed it would further some cause that affected them — that kind of protest is, after all, a very American thing to do. But I suspect that rather the opposite is true — that this boycott will actually harm their interests, by getting the majority of Americans more agitated about the notions of border control and illegal immigration. In other words, I’m expecting that there will be a blowback from this boycott — and the more effective the boycott is, the more powerful the blowback will be.

On the other hand, I believe those illegal immigrants who are here for exploitative reasons should be denied any kind of citizenship at all, and should be pitched out of the country. In my view, such people are not really “immigrants", and their presence here should be illegal — as should their employment — and these rules should be enforced. So certainly I do not believe that such people should have the right to protest in America. But I cannot blame them for this protest; their behavior is quite natural for someone hellbent on exploitation — this is just one more step in that progression.

I’ve received a couple of emails on my previous post that supports open immigration, from people wondering how I would propose identifying immigrants as opposed to exploiters. I don’t presuppose that this is an easy or simple thing to do, but I can certainly point to a few ideas how this might be done. One indicator would be the unwillingness to learn workable English, a basic Aerican history, and the workings of American democracy. Another would be immediate family remaining behind in the home country (e.g., a husband coming here to work, but leaving his wife and children behind in Mexico). Another might be how much money one sends home, as opposed to spends on building a life in America (though this one is fraught with difficulties, as of course there are circumstances where it would be quite appropriate for an immigrant to send a majority of his or her income back to loved ones at home — especially if the purpose was to bring them to America). The bottom line is that this discrimination between immigrants and exploiters requires some judgment, and I believe that would be a useful purpose for our “Immigration Service” to perform, as opposed to the largely useless function it serves today.

Drug Legalization

The Mexican assembly has passed legislation that legalizes the possession of small quantities of illegal drugs, while stiffening penalties for possession of larger quantities (presumed to be for resale). Political and lamestream media reaction has been largely (and predictably) negative, with most of the commentary focusing on the incentive thus provided for Americans in border areas to go to Mexico to purchase and use drugs.

I can’t get too excited about this change in Mexico’s laws. It’s actually less of a change than most people realize, as for many years the police and judges in Mexico have had the discretion to not press charges on people possessing small quantities of drugs for personal use, and that discretion is frequently used. The new law really just makes that discretion mandatory, and then cracks down fairly hard on trafficking — not a big change from the current status, and in my own personal view, the change is in the wrong direction.

My own views on drug legalization are essentially the usual libertarian view: I don’t believe the government has any business regulating any activity that does not harm others. I’m not a user of illegal drugs myself, so I don’t have a personal dog in this fight. If an adult wants to harm him or her self by abusing a dangerous drug, I think that person should have the right to do so. Think of it as evolution at work.

Furthermore, in the case of drugs that are declared illegal, the government is doing demonstrable harm to its citizens. By criminalizing the use of a drug, the government doesn’t stop people from using it — just as prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking alcohol. Anybody who want the drug badly enough is going to find a way to get it — from a criminal enterprise, by definition. When, as with either alcohol or illegal drugs, the overall demand in the country is large, then huge (and hugely profitable) criminal enterprises spring up to service that demand. This is as inevitable and predictable as the sunrise tomorrow morning. Equally inevitable is the premium price that will be placed on the drug — and this manufacturers criminal behavior from drug users who are desparate to finance their next dose. This surge in criminality was experienced during prohibition, and it’s being experienced in the U.S. today — depending on whose estimate you want to believe, between half and three quarters of all property crimes, and a similar fraction of violent crimes, are related to drug usage or drug trafficking. Our overcrowded prisons are full of people convicted of such crimes.

Several things would most likely happen (I don’t think there’s any way to know for sure unless we tried it) if we decriminalized drug use:

— We’d have to set up the same sorts of rules we have today for minimum drinking age, to minimize the exposure of people to drugs when they’re too young to make rational decisions about such things. Yes, all such regimes are imperfect, and some abuses would occur anyway — just as they do with alcohol. It seems likely to me that society would survive such abuses just fine — and when they occur outside the stigma of criminality that they do today, they’ll be all that much easier to uncover and deal with.

— The prices of drugs will fall dramatically, and the quality and consistency will rise dramatically. That’s because the production will no longer be illegal, and legitimate companies (much like the alcoholic beverage companies) will make a business out of the entire process of production and distribution. And naturally the government will require safe drugs with consistent dosages (much as alcoholic beverages are all clearly marked with the percentage of alcohol). That means drug users will no longer take unknowing risks when they use their drugs; today there are no guarantees about the dosage in illegally acquired drugs.

— I have no clear notion of what will happen to the number of drug users. The knee-jerk reaction is that the number will go dramatically up, but that reaction ignores the ease and low risk with which one can obtain drugs illegally today. My bet would be that we’d see only a small change, as for the most part the people inclined to use drugs are already doing so. The much lower prices might encourage more drug use, although the experience of the Netherlands (which decriminalized most drug use years ago) seems to argue against that difference being very large.

— Overall levels of violent crimes and property crimes should be greatly reduced. This effect is a good enough reason all by itself to justify decriminalizing drugs, in my opinion.

— The corruption and other threats to the rule of law inherent in large-scale illegal drug production and distribution, in this country and in other countries involved, would be great reduced or even eliminated. Like the preceding effect, I think this is reason enough all by itself to justify decriminalizing drugs.

But will decriminalization ever happen? Every poll I’ve seen on the subject shows depressingly little (from my perspective) support in the American public for decriminalization. I have a difficult time understanding this, especially when it comes to comparatively harmless drugs such as marijuana — why on earth does the American public (some 40% of whom are marijuana users!) see a clear moral distinction between alcohol use and marijuana use? It’s easier for me to understand the public view when it comes to addictive drugs — there’s much more on both sides of the balance there.

But for me, my libertarian views far outweigh all the other arguments (including those I’ve discussed above): in my ideal democracy, the government would keep its nose completely out of my personal behavior (so long as that behavior affects only me or others voluntarily choosing to participate in it with me). By criminalizing drugs, the government is telling me that I can’t do something to myself, even when it does no harm to anyone else — and I object to that!