Continued

My heroic reader Jeff, having worked his way through two of my posts (most recently this one, has even more to say (again, tackled piece-by-piece):

Tom, thank you for responding to my comment. Your response was both informative and troubling. In some respects your writing style is very serious and formal, but all the talk of 'moonbats', 'lamestream media' and the deragatory usage of the word liberal really does detract from your statements.

I’ve railed about the uncivil tone of the political discourse myself — and here I’m being upbraided for doing it myself <smile>. But I’m guilty as charged; it happens when my fear of what the modern liberals are doing to the America I love — and frustration about my inability to do anything about it — overtake my reason.

I’m curious what Jeff’s take is on the tone of both the posts and the comments on the premeir leftish sites like the Daily Kos, moveon.org, Atrios, and the Huffington Post…

Like I said, your response was informative, and your knowledge of US politics is vastly superior to mine, so I will not respond to every point, but I would like to say a few things. This story is one example of the type of things I was thinking of when I commented that this program could be abused. I know from the previous post that you would like to see these leakers revealed and punished, so this probably will not bother you that the database setup to collect information on terrorists might be used to gain information about those with no ties to terrorism, but it bothers me. I would have no problem with the administration going through the judicial process to find out who these reporters have been talking to, but the idea of these hidden means bothers me.

The story Jeff refers to is about some ABC News reporters who were told by an unamed source that their phone numbers were being tracked by federal investigators. A round of secondary news stories (and commentary) have linked this story with the NSA datamining project, using the assumption that the datamining project was the source of the investigator’s information.

My opinion: it’s way too early to read anything whatsoever into this story. First of all, it’s a single, unattributed source this information is coming from — who knows if it’s even true? Secondly (as even ABC News reported), even if the story is true, there’s no indication that the information came from the NSA datamining project. The timing of this story makes me very suspicious — it’s so convenient for the left-leaning folks. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find out that it’s an old story re-published, or that it can’t be substantiated, and is simply a political tactic to help derail the NSA datamining operation. Jeff seems to have been sucked into the assumption that the information came from the NSA datamining project, and comments that he’d be ok with it if the phone number capture was judicially approved — but note that nowhere in the story is there any indication that judicial approval was not obtained. It may be exactly the kind of case Jeff approves of — though many people (including some rather over-the-top commenters on the story) seem to be assuming otherwise.

I’ll go one further, though. Suppose for a moment that ABC News was chasing a story about a secret intelligence-gathering program that was tracking down Al Qaida members. Suppose further that some government official, for whatever reasons, was leaking information about it to the ABC News reporters. Such leaks would be (a) illegal, (b) detrimental to the welfare of this country, and (c) harmful to our efforts in the war on terror. Jeff, if I’m understanding him correctly, would approve of monitoring telephone numbers called in an investigation on something like this, if judicially approved. My opinion: we’re fighting a war here, folks — we don’t have the luxury of time or the luxury of resources to pursue judicial permission for every intelligence lead we get. When actionable intelligence is received in a war, our frontline soldiers, sailors, and domestic law enforcement must be free to act on that intelligence just as quickly as they can. Back to my hypothetical case: the faster our law enforcement folks could shut down that leaker, the less damage would be done to our efforts — and a “hole” in our security is plugged. I not only approve of such efforts, I demand — as a citizen of a country at war — that our government do so.

What other groups of people, that are not terrorists, will this database be used to gain access over? But that is all speculation, it is not known if the story above is referring to the NSA database or not. That leads me to another point, that of potential. You are not worried about potential abuse, only actual abuse. I agree, potential abuse isn’t a problem, until it becomes actual abuse.

Well, I think I hear Jeff agreeing with me on this point: that the right thing to pursue is actual abuse, not potential abuse. Jeff’s worried about the potential for the NSA datamining project to be used to go after non-terrorist groups (or individuals, I presume). Unlike Jeff, I’m not worried about it at all — if the rules and boundaries are set (as we’re told they are), then I’m perfectly content to let the system operate as a tool in the war on terror (though I wish the hell our enemy didn’t know about it!). And if someone, somewhere, somewhen does break the rules, and does use the system for other purposes — then we should come down on that person like a ton of bricks. Make that two tons…

It is impossible to know if and when a potential abuse will become an actual abuse, so we put in safeguards to minimize the potential abuse from becoming an actual abuse. There is the potential that terrorists will sneak into the US through the US-Mexico border, so we have a border patrol (possibly soon to be aided by the National Guard) to make sure the terrorists don’t get into the country. As far as I know there have been no terrorists that have snuck into the country from Mexico, I’m not sure that there have been any attempts, but that does not stop us from guarding against that potential. (Something curious to look at is that there have been attempts by terrorists to come into the US from Canada (New Year’s 2000), but that border is not nearly as patrolled or as secure as the US-Mexico border). There are many other examples of potentials for abuse where we do take precautions to minimize the chance of the potentials becoming actuals. There is potential for abuse (of many things, not just this NSA database) by members of the government, and that is a reason why the founding fathers put in the checks of the judicial and legislative branches on the executive. I would be far less critical of these programs if there was judicial oversight.

Jeff raises securing the border as an example of a safeguard that attempts to prevent a potential abuse from becoming an actual abuse. Border security is something I’ve posted about before; the short version is that I believe it’s a futile gesture — real border security, if it’s even possible, would be so expensive that we’d never actually do it.

I’m not entirely sure what point Jeff is trying to make here, but my eyes stopped at the “judicial oversight”. Why? Because this is a great example of the current liberal strategy, well-articulated by liberal leaders, and Jeff has obviously bought into it. The strategy is straight-forward: put control in the hands of the judicicary (not the balance that Jeff voiced, and that our founding fathers really did want). Liberal strategists noted (this was in the late '60s, early '70s) that those pesky voters were voting down liberal programs, but left-leaning judges could override the voters on Constitutional grounds. Those strategists noted that while the left might never have a majority of votes, if they had even a minority of judges in their pocket, then it wouldn’t matter. And they outlined a strategy for getting there.

Roe v. Wade is an excellent example of the results of this effort. Polls consistently report that a clear majority of American voters do not support abortion on demand, except in cases of crime (e.g., rape) or when the mother’s life is endangered. Not even the left disputes that, though they don’t like it very much. Harry Blackmun (the key vote on the Supreme Court ruling) was one of those judges the left wanted on their side — and his finding of privacy rights “emanating” from Constitutional clauses did exactly what the left wanted: it supported the left’s cause by overriding the voters.

That’s not the America I want, Jeff. I do not want that kind of “judicial oversight”. I want judges to be involved after there’s a problem (as the Founding Fathers intended), not before. I want judges to interpret laws (and the Constitution) as they were written and as they were intended, and not on the basis of emanations, foreign law, or political agendas. I have less faith in individual judges than I do in the collective voters — putting my fate in the hands of an uncontrolled judiciary is a very frightening thing to me…

It has been reported that Qwest did not give the information to the NSA because they felt that it was against the law, and that there were legal means the government could go through to get the information, but they did not. If this information is so important, why didn’t they upon rejection, get a court order to require the company to turn over the records?

Well, there are lots of things being reported about Qwest’s refusal. I’ve read several reports that the government is pursuing a court order. I also read that Qwest didn’t actually refuse — they demanded payment, and the government refused that. Another piece of context, not irrelevant, I think: Qwest is embroiled in a huge criminal scandal at the moment, with ongoing investigations and prosecutions. Bottom line is that I don’t know what the heck is going on there — but I surely wouldn’t assume that their behavior was altruistically motivated.

I worry about the amounts of power, presumably unchecked by the legislature and courts, that we’re giving to the executive branch and the intelligence agencies.

And I worry about exactly the opposite. I worry that our executive branch (including the intelligence agencies) is so hamstrung by political considerations that they cannot operate effectively. I worry that this hamstringing will lead to another unnecessarily successful attack by the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. I worry that those terrorists are laughing in their hidey-holes at how the “useful idiots” in America are helping their cause. I worry that exposed (or even worse — unattempted) intelligence efforts are causing American blood to be spilled.

As far as my question about encryption, it was less a legal question and more a moral question (the kind of question I find far more interesting). My question wasn’t worded very well originally. A less ambigous question would be, Should the non-bad guys refrain from using encryption so the intelligence agencies can focus on a smaller amount of encrypted traffic?

Ah, yes, that is rather a different question.

From a technical point of view, I don’t think this would actually make any difference at all. The intelligence agencies can (and I’m sure, do) just ignore the encrypted traffic from the good guys. The presence of that traffic doesn’t impede their efforts against the bad guys in any way that I can think of. Are you imagining that the presence of encrypted traffic from the good guys makes it harder to find the bad guys? I’m sure that’s not the case at all, for two reasons: (1) encrypted traffic can easily be hidden by distributing it amongst unencrypted traffic (that’s the essence of steganography), and (2) the intelligence agencies must also monitor unencrypted traffic, because the bad guys will use that as well (especially if they think we’re only monitoring the encrypted traffic!). No, the intelligence agencies have to identify the bad guys' traffic (encrypted or not) by other means. Having the good guys refrain from encrypting wouldn’t do a darned thing to help…

I have another not-completely-related question I’d like to ask while I’m here, what is your opinion on a national gun registry?

Hmmm… I wonder how Jeff thinks this is a related topic?

I’m sure he won’t be surprised to find that I am very much against a national guns registry — even though we’re partway there already. I own three guns (a revolver, a shotgun, and a .22 varmint rifle), and the federal government already knows about my owning all three of them (through the paperwork process required before I could legally buy them).

I’ve had this debate with several leftish friends already. They all seem to have trouble understanding how I could possibly object to simply registering my guns. My objections boil down to just two fundamental ones:

First, on philosophical grounds that Jeff must be familiar with by now: registration is a presumptive remedy. In the lexicon we’ve evolved in this debate, gun registration tackles the potential abuse, not the actual abuse. I want to live in a country that goes after the actual abusers, not the potential abusers. I don’t want a nanny state, with bureaucrats giving me permission for my every move; I want to live in the state our Founding Fathers envisioned, wherein I can do as I damn well please — until I violate a law we’ve all agreed on, in which case I get thoroughly and appropriately spanked.

Second, on practical grounds: history tells us that gun registration would be the first step down a slippery slope that’s been well-traveled. There are many direct analogs in history — all dismissed by the left in a cavalier fashion that simply terrifies me. The most notorious are the Nazis and the Soviet Union (both instituted gun registration, which was followed by more and more restrictions on gun ownership, and eventually in universal gun confiscation), but there are many other less notorious examples more recently, especially in Europe. In every case, the gun registration was introduced as a stand-alone measure, with no intention of being morphed into gun control — and in every case, gun control in varying degrees was the eventual result. The most recent example is our neighbor Canada, where gun registration was instituted, and where now gun control is being debated (after many promises that this would never occur!).

Implicit in the two points above is a belief that I hold that the freedom to own weapons is a fundamental American right. It’s the ultimate check on our government’s power over us. An unarmed population is an irresistable lure for despots (to anyone who doubts this, I recommend a healthy dose of history study)…and less flagrant forms of power-grabbing. And the right to own weapons is also closely tied with the right to defend one’s home, family, and property (a right that has nearly disappeared in Europe)…

Miki Report

Miki (our new field spaniel puppy) is now 13 weeks old. He’s visibly larger, and I’d estimate he now wieghs 20 pounds. His shape is also visibly changing — he’s transforming from the chubby little puppy we picked up three weeks ago into an adult male dog. I meant to get some pictures yesterday, but events overtook us. I’ll try again today…

Yesterday evening we had a “first": Miki got into a boisterous play session with our two adult field spaniels. With Lea (our adult female) the play was especially intense; Mo’i (our adult male) mostly tagged along behind. We were watching a movie when this play session began, but we had to pause the movie because of the doggy din — it was loud! All three of the dogs were having a lot of fun, but little Miki was having the time of his life. He zoomed around the room, dove under furniture, yapped his fool head off, and “attacked” the adult dogs head-on, fearlessly. Between his fierce puppy barks and his endless antics, he had the human observers rolling around the floor, laughing their fool heads off. Debbie loved the moments when Miki would catch sight of her (sitting on the floor), and would bound into her lap for a moment of caressing — before he rocketed off after Lea or Mo’i one more time. I particularly enjoyed seeing Lea (who is our oldest dog) leaping and playing like a fantastically agile puppy…

Steyn on the NSA

The always-observant Mark Steyn notes that the lamestream media is (a) quick to criticize the government after a successful terrorist attack, and (b) quick to criticize the government’s attempts to prevent terrorist attacks. He points out that they seem to have two templates ready for instant use:

From “To connect the dots, you have to see the dots” by Mark Steyn:

Template A (note to editors: to be used after every terrorist atrocity): “Angry family members, experts and opposition politicians demand to know why complacent government didn’t connect the dots."

Template B (note to editors: to be used in the run-up to the next terrorist atrocity): “Shocking new report leaked to New York Times for Pulitzer Prize Leak Of The Year Award nomination reveals that paranoid government officials are trying to connect the dots! See pages 3,4,6,7,8, 13-37."

As the Instapundit would say, read the whole thing!

Of course this kind of “reporting” has an effect, and it’s not exactly a subtle one. The majority of Americans get their news from sources using Mr. Steyn’s templates (on all political stories, not just the NSA datamining). Darned few bother to look under any other rocks…

You might well ask what I believe would be the right response from the media in these circumstances. Glad you asked! What they really should do, if they’re positioning themselves as news sources, is to report the facts — without editorializing by omission, without selecting what to investigate by some agenda of their own, and without cherry-picking “facts” to support positions they endorse. Mr. Steyn’s “templates” are, I believe, symptoms of the biased lamestream media.

NSA Datamining

Jeff, one member of the tiny cadre of regular JamulBlog readers, doesn’t agree with my take on the NSA datamining project. His comments are interesting, but long and detailed — it’s clear he’s thought about this topic, and done some reading about it. What follows is a point-by-point commentary on Jeff’s points…

Jeff starts:

I am against this program. I don’t consider myself a Democrat, nor do I consider myself a Republican, I might be a little more liberal than conservative but I don’t fit easily into one place on the political spectrum. There are various reasons why I am against this program, and I’ll try to explain a couple of them here.

Like Jeff, my politics are hard to characterize in a single label. I have no party affiliation. On the political spectrum, I’d make a three-dimensional one (libertarian, liberal, conservative) — and in that world, I’d be partway from the center toward the libertarian/conservative corner, a bit closer to libertarian…

I don’t know about the legality of this. I’ve heard the President and the phone companies say everything they’re doing is within the law, and I’ve heard the law professors say that they can’t think of a way this would be done legally.

I’ve not read any credible source (I don’t count lamestream media talking heads amongst these, nor do I count the ACLU) arguing that the NSA’s datamining project is clearly illegal; Jeff doesn’t cite any so I don’t have any way to rebut them. I have read several very credible sources that either defend the legality of the project, or that say the relevant law is confused or conflicting. Powerline has an interesting discussion here citing some law that seems to clearly give the government the right to those phone records in a terrorist investigation — but it’s not clear exactly what is meant by “terrorist investigation” (a good example of the ambiguity in the law). Does “terrorist investigation” mean some specific investigation of some specific terrorist incident? Or may it also mean the general investigation of terrorists? Orin Kerr, posting at the Volokh Conspiracy, has an extended discussion about the legality of the data mining effort, full of complex detail — but not full of certainty. These two posts are the best examples I’ve found of credible uncertainty with respect to the legality of the NSA datamining project. All the other credible sources I’ve read are persuaded that it is fully legal.

I’ll leave this topic with one last comment: if it turns out to be the case that the NSA’s project is illegal under current law, then I believe the law should be changed. I want the NSA pursuing efforts like these to track down terrorists — and I am completely unworried about any loss of my privacy due to the government having my billing records. As the aforementioned Powerline post notes (along with a bazillion others): I have already given up any real privacy to those records long ago — the phone companies are free as a matter of law to give (or sell) those records to anyone they like, except the government (which of course the NSA is part of). We already have no privacy with respect to those records.

[R]egardless of the legality, why didn’t congress know this was going on? Regardless of political affiliation it seems many congressmen were caught very off guard by this and are now asking questions (among them, why didn’t we know about this?). It’s one thing to keep a program like this secret by not telling the public about it. It’s another thing to keep it so secret that many (if not all) members of the legislative branch don’t know about it.

On this point I believe Jeff is simply misinformed. The normal process for classified operations is that a small group of specifically designated legislators — selected by their peers — are given clearances and special access consistent with their oversight responsibilities. This program was disclosed to them (as the members of the oversight committee have publicly affirmed). The fact that it was not disclosed to other legislators is the perfectly normal way we handle our clandestine affairs, for so many obvious and good reasons that I won’t even try to debate them here. I will point you to a Hot Air segment that looks at the NSA’s Cryptologic Museum — and touches on this need for secrecy at the end.

On a related point, it’s worth noting that the NSA’s data mining project has been public for almost six months — it’s not “new” news. For example, the New York Times wrote about it last December. It’s in the news now because those moonbat lapdogs in the lamestream media believe that stirring up a fuss about the NSA’s programs will help defeat General Hayden’s nomination as CIA Director (General Hayden oversaw the implementation of those NSA programs). As best I can determine, the existence of the NSA program was first leaked in late summer of last year. The only elements leaked recently (that I know of) are the names of the participating companies.

A second point, related to the first is that Alberto Gonzalez, when testifying before congress (although not under oath, why not?) about the previous information to come out about NSA wiretapping citizens in the US making or receiving international calls (without a warrant, even though the FISA would allow them to do it, then get a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact) told congress that the NSA program was very limited in scope. While these two programs are not identical, they are somewhat similar.

I will respectfully disagree with Jeff on this point — I don’t believe that the programs are similar at all. Mr. Gonzalez was testifying about wiretapping operations, wherein the NSA was actually listening to the conversations. Wiretapping and call records are covered by very different law, very different procedures, and are completely different programs.

As to Mr. Gonzalez not testifying under oath — my understanding is that such “informational” testimony is normal when seeking information from legal representatives (and Mr. Gonzalez was President Bush’s representative). I’m no expert on this, but I’ve been told that this maneuver is the agreed way to handle the conflicts of interest that are intrinsic in such testimony, especially with regard to the full disclosure obligations inherent in testifying under oath (the famous “full truth” clause). One thing I do know is that many attorneys, for presidents (and other government officials) of both parties have made use of this process. Remember Ron Brown, Clinton’s Commerce Secretary? He was under investigation on corruption charges (and likely would have been indicted); during the investigation his attorney testified before Congress — but not under oath.

I can think of some scenarios where this database could be dangerous to the privacy of Americans, although I do agree that it alone is not nearly as bad as many people think it is. But I don’t like the direction things are going. While they might only have a phone number in a database, it isn’t difficult at all to find out whom that phone number belongs to (especially if the phone companies are so willing to cooperate).

Unlike Jeff, I have trouble thinking of any scenario where disclosure of phone numbers and names (I believe the NSA has the names as part of their database) is a privacy concern. It’s not as though the government doesn’t know who we are and where we live today. And remember — we already have no right to privacy with respect to disclosure of that data to non-government entities. In other words, the phone companies already have the right (which they use routinely!) to sell that information to other non-governmental parties.

I’d like to hear Jeff’s troublesome scenario…

Every time I hear someone make this argument (that our anti-terrorist efforts are violating our civil rights), I go through a thought exercise with two parts:

— Can I convince myself that the program is likely to yield results?

— Does the benefit outweigh the impact to my civil rights?

On that first point, I have no trouble convincing myself that the NSA’s datamining project could yield valuable intelligence. To cite just one example: suppose that (through other intelligence efforts) the NSA knows the cell phone number for a fire-breathing imam in Pakistan. There’s an obvious direct benefit to mining this database to find out all the conversations anyone in the US has had with this imam. There will be innocent conversations (probably the majority) in that mix — but surely not all of them would be. But even more interesting — and this is enabled by the datamining — would be to look for patterns in the various parties called. For example, suppose that it turns out (in the preceding example) that the imam had talked with 100 people in the US — and 5 of those people had all talked to the same previously unknown phone number in Iraq. I would hope that our intelligence services are pursuing information like that!

On the second point, since I see no negative impact on my civil rights because of the NSA’s datamining project, and I do see a benefit — then clearly the balance looks positive to me.

One thing I always wonder when I hear people concerned about civil liberties threats: where, exactly, do they see the threat? Jeff cites nothing specific — just “…I don’t like the direction things are going…” — and, so far as I can tell, the same is true for all the politicians (primarily Democrats, which is hard to ignore) hollering about it. I’d like for someone to tell me exactly what rights of mine are in such danger. And I’d especially like them to explain to me how that danger (assuming someone can even identify it for me) is anything even approximating the magnitude of the danger we all face from radial Islamic terrorists.

I think what’s really going on with most of these politicians is a combination of two things: simple partisanship, rising above patriotic concern for the country’s welfare, and a disbelief in the clear and present danger of radical Islam. The barking moonbat liberal wing of American polity has, I’m afraid, adopted the former tactic and latter belief. When I hear someone like Schumer, McCain, Daschle, or Kennedy speak on subjects like this…I simply cannot believe that they are sincere in their patriotism.

Last, just like I think the dangers of the program are somewhat overblown, I also think the dangers to national security by this program being uncovered are overblown as well. I like to think that the real bad guys aren’t making phone calls and communicating over the internet in the same way normal people do (if so I would hope they would have been caught long ago). My guess is that they’re using strong encryption online and pre-paid cell phones that can’t be traced back to them when they need to communicate over the phone or internet. So this program doesn’t directly affect them. So you have to question exactly what this program is doing, and why the fact that it’s known is so harmful to our security. I can think of one possible thing this program is doing to protect our national security: analyzing the phone call links of those people that aren’t directly a threat, but might know someone that is (whether they know that person is or not). These are people that feel they have nothing to hide, if they did have intentions to commit crimes they would be taking measures to protect themselves like I mentioned above. So even with this information out in the open that the NSA is creating a database of our phone records, they aren’t going to feel the need to change anything, and the NSA will still get all the data just as they did before.

Jeff’s essential point here is that (my rewording) the bad guys aren’t stupid enough to be caught by programs like this, so disclosing the existence of the program isn’t such a big deal.

On this point I believe that Jeff is badly misinformed. There are many examples in the public record of exactly this kind of intelligence exploitation of stupid procedure by the bad guys. Perhaps the most famous of these amongst the terrorists was Bin Laden’s use of unencrypted satellite phones — until, that is, our interception of his calls was disclosed by our press (and after they were asked not to do so!). During the Afghanistan invasion, we made extensive use of cell phone intercepts where the bad guys things so stupid as to pass belief (such as discussing specific tactics and timing of impending attacks); this is well documented in the public record. Here in the U.S., law enforcement officials have publicly (and loudly!) complained about the disclosure of (to my knowledge) “dumpster diving” operations (examining the garbage of suspects for clues), credit card transaction history examinations, EZ pass history datamining, and specific surveillance techniques. Sorry, Jeff — but it is incontrovertably true that the bad guys often do stupid things — and that those stupid things are exploitable //only so long as the fact that we’re exploiting them is secret.//

As to the terrorists use of strong encryption (and other technological means for maintaining secrecy): I would recommend (for anyone) a careful reading of Bruce Schneier’s books — especially his more recent volumes. Mr. Schneier is a world-renowned cryptanalyst (whom I once had the distinct pleasure of meeting). After years of work in his field, he figured out a basic truth: the flaws in most systems for secrecy are in process and human participation. They are far more vulnerable to social engineering attacks and exploitation of stupid behavior than they are to technical attack. His books, and the insights they contain, are sobering material for anyone interested in security.

I can add to that my own experiences in the U.S. Navy. I won’t describe specifics here, for obvious reasons. The ship I was on (the U.S.S. Long Beach) was nuclear powered, and sometimes carried nuclear weapons. Security was a concern. Several times a year, friendly pseudo-adversaries (I believe they were operatives of the NIS) attempted to penetrate the “secure spaces” on the ship. These included the radio room (where highly classified traffic could be found), the Combat Information Center (where I normaly worked), and the missile rooms (where nuclear warheads could be found). These penetration attempts were made by unarmed men who either talked their way in (a social engineering attack) or who directly exploited stupid behavior amongst the sailors. In my four years on the ship, these teams succeeded each and every time. My point: even the good guys, allegedly well-trained and disciplined, have stupid behaviors that can be exploited. But only so long as we don’t know they’re being exploited…

I also don’t understand why you and Rick Morgan among others are so quick to dismiss the potential for abuse. There is a potential for abuse, I don’t have any credible evidence that this database will be abused, but you don’t have any way of ensuring that it won’t be abused. Is there anything to stop the government from using this database for analyzing the calling habits of groups that are in no way affiliated with al qaeda? Would you still be in support of this program if it did include names associated with the phone numbers? What if it included gps tracking data from cell phones (the FCC requires all new cell phones to include gps tracking units)? Is there anything to prevent this sort of data collection in the future?

The key to understanding how I respond to Jeff’s points above is this: the word “potential”. I don’t give a hoot about “potential abuse", and I’ll dismiss it all day long. To make my point in an exteme way: there an awful lot of potential abuse in an aircraft carrier. Just think what mischief a rogue captain could pursue! Let’s ban aircraft carriers!

What I do care about is actual abuse. Through all the liberal hysteria, I have yet to hear about a single case of signifcant civil rights abuse of U.S. citizens occurring in the war on terror. If and when such abuse occurs, then I’d be all for prosecuting the sorry sack of s__t who did it the fullest extent of the law.

Hah! I just thought of an even better example to make my point. Duke Cunningham is in jail because of his actual abuse of our laws — and I’ll be a happy guy if he dies in prison. Harsh, aren’t I? But just think of all the potential abuse represented by every other porking Congressman or Senator! We’d better jump on that one right away, and ban those folks from office!

Almost anything has the potential for abuse. Who cares? What matters, really, is what is abused.

And please remember, it’s not only the American left that is up in arms over this program. Arlen Specter was asking questions about it, and said he plans to have congressional hears over the program. He is not a crazy American left “Moonbat” but rather a Republican senator.

Arlen Specter not a moonbat? Puh-lease, Jeff, cut me a break. I can hear him barking even way out here in Jamul <smile>! Senator Specter is the king of the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), and almost a caricature of the posturing politician who sees almost anything strictly in terms of how he can best leverage it politically. To me, he and McCain are the best two examples of that species within the Republican part (though certainly not the only ones, by any means). For reasons I don’t even begin to understand, the Democratic party seems to be blighted with large numbers of these despicable creatures — Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy being prime examples…

This is not entirely related, but not completely unrelated, I have to wonder and will ask, what is your take on using encryption on the internet? Obviously the bad guys use it, should be try to prevent that? Should we try to prevent the non-bad guys from using encryption so that all of the encrypted traffic the NSA collects is from bad guys and they don’t waste their time cracking unimportant communications?

I think trying to prevent the use of encryption on the Internet is an exercise in futility. That particular cat is completely out of the bag and running around like crazy — industrial-strength encryption technology is widely and openly available (for free, even). This includes even the technology for undetectably hidden encrypted messages (steganography). This means that anybody who wants to know how to send secure messages already has access to the technology required to do so — there’s nothing we can do to prevent its use, or even to detect its use (if the user even bothers to hide it).

Really this is another of those “potential for abuse” issues — should we ban encryption because some bad guy might use it? As a matter of philosophy, my reflexive response to any such situation is “Hell, no! You prosecute the abuser, by appropriate means in the circumstances.” Wanting to “protect” us all from all “potential dangers” is very much a liberal mindset — and very contrary to a libertarian mindset. Please don’t “protect” me from encryption — or guns, or NSA datamining.

... What is your take on this story: Is there any reason for this denial of clearance? These are DOJ lawayers that seemingly should have the proper authority to look into this matter. Who denied them the clearance? This is one example of a reason I am weary about the story above.

This was news to me; I had to follow your link (and do some Googling) to get informed. There are several interesting threads on this one:

— According to the news reports, it was the NSA who denied the lawyers a clearance. Having been in the military, with a security clearance, I can tell you this much: clearances are denied to individuals, not categories of people. I will not presume that the NSA is acting in bad faith — their job is to protect us, and part of that job includes deciding who is trustworthy enough to get a clearance. I have no idea who those lawyers were, but I am perfectly willing to go with the NSA’s judgement about their trustworthiness. No news report suggested that no lawyer could get clearances, just not these lawyers.

— Hinchey (the New York Democratic Congressman pushing for the investigation that got shut down for lack of clearance) is one of a group of Democrats who can be counted on to object to just about anything President Bush does. This time (on the NSA wiretaps — not the case we’re discussing above), however, he’s opened a hornet’s nest that the Democratic party leaders have been rapidly distancing themselves from — because the public’s reaction to the NSA Al Qaida wiretaps is so overwhelmingly positive. So from a Democratic political perspective, the best thing that could happen to Hinchey’s investigation is that it get shut down by the Bush administration (or at least appear to have done so). So with my jaundiced political maneuvering weather eye, I suspect that Hinchey leaped on the denial of clearances as an excuse.

— A corollary to the above is that Karl Rove, I’m sure, would like nothing more than for this investigation to continue — in the most public possible way. From a political perspective, the NSA’s Al Qaida wiretap program is a stunning success — what could be better for the Republicans than the public spectacle of the Democrats railing against it? I can see the campaign ads now…

Nope, it makes no sense for Republicans to be maneuvering behind the scenes to deny these clearances. A far more plausible scenario is this: the particular lawyers who applied for a clearance were denied that clearance for some good reason, and the Democrats seized on that as a way to exit from the investigation in a politically advantageous way.

Don’t you just hate this stuff? I pine for the days (if they ever really existed) when our government was full of men there to serve their country, to give back a little — instead of the power and money driven political culture we have today…

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?