Dogs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I haven't blogged on family life for a while--there has been so much going on around here that was hard to sort through what to blog and what should never see the light of day. I have been meaning to blog about the dogs for a while, but it was to be about the good, the good and the good. Until Sunday evening . . .





But I want to start with the GOOD:
Umbrae is now just over seven months old, and the vet thinks he's a Newfie/Husky cross based on size and some other characteristics. We know the mom, but not the dad, so . . . could be.

Umbrae has passed his Puppy Kindergarten and his Intermediate training courses with flying colors. He is very attentive to us when we are working with him, and so we just began a 16 week Advanced class that teaches the skills he needs to test and be certified by Therapy Dog International.

Because he is already bigger than both of our other dogs, and he is going to be bigger still, we have decided that the more training the better--and if he is a certified Therapy Dog--we can take him to lots of places. Since he is so smart and so willing (and as the Engineering Geek says--"so treat motivated"), this is becoming fun for us as well as for him.

At home, he is our happy-go-lucky Baby Huey, and he now obligingly fetches the newspaper from the top of the driveway for us.



The BAD (or at least the misbehaving): As Umbrae has grown up, Lily has grudgingly accepted him, but for some reason in the past few weeks a new rivalry has begun between Lily and Shayna, and Lily has been the agressor. I had noticed that Lily has begun to encroach on my territory as well.
It all culminated Sunday night when I went to bed early and fell asleep. Apparently, Lily got up on the bed with me, and when the EG moved her off later, Shayna was standing beside the bed. Lily went for her and cornered her. She did not go for the throat, so the trainer is pretty certain she was not going for the kill, but it still meant another trip to the vet, and another round with the trainer. Lily has been the only dog who is not crated. We got Shayna a crate last year when I noticed that she crawled under the rocker to sleep, and she uses it frequently. We started Umbrae on crate training right away and it has kept him calm and happy. So yesterday I finally got Lily a crate, expecting she'd be unhappy, but she took to it pretty well last night.




The UGLY: Poor Shayna, she was standing by the bed and maybe there was a look exchanged, and I was awakened by the serious growling of a dog fight, and the Engineering Geek breaking it up. Although it lasted no more than a minute, Shayna ended up with a gouge in her back. She hid in her crate that night, so I found the bleeding wound yesterday morning.

She came home from the vet with two shaved spots, five staples, and a desire to stay in her crate. Last night she did not want to come out at all, but this morning thirst and bribery got her to come out for a walk and to get her meds. She's now lying on the floor by my chair, but still she's quiet and more submissive than usual.

Yesterday I had a good discussion with the vet about Lily. Although she had a routine shot update in February, we are going to take her in for a full physical to make sure there is not an organic basis for her irritibility. It could be as simply as allergies. We also talked about structuring her days more carefully, and the use of a crate. Although Lily is not supposed to be on the bed, she was, and both the vet and trainer think this fight started as a dominance move on her part. But there has also been a lot of stress around here for a variety of reasons, and Lily is a reactive dog. So we have been told that renewing structure and routine, asserting our leadership equally over all three dogs, and crating Lily are all likely to make Lily and Shayna feel more secure and prevent further badness and ugliness.

From the start, Lily has taken on the function of showing me where my dog skills are wanting, and when our routines have been upset and need resetting. She's been the most challenging dog I've ever had. And yet we have become better dog owners one step at a time as we have dealt with her. She is getting older and has become calmer, she doesn't like strangers, but she no longer fears them, and now in her middle years, we have to keep her feeling safe and secure by providing structure for her. She is our household barometer.

And that's the good, the bad and the ugly dog story for the quarter.

Introducing Liberty Song Saturday . . .

Somewhere there's a picture of one of my ancestors in some little town in Poland or Lithuania carrying the black flag of anarchy while singing the Anti-Fascist March.

The word Anarchy means "no ruler" and the idea that my anarchist ancestor espoused was that each person is sovereign over his own life.

Anarchy does not mean "no law", although those who fight for their individual rights are often accused of lawlessness when they oppose oppressive governments.

Anarchy does not mean "no morality." A thoughtful anarchist understands that the nature that endows a human being with individual rights requires the most rigorous of morality--not one of tradition or convenience--but an objective requirement that the individual rights of all must be respected, and that all morality springs from that.


Many anarchists believe in a kind of stateless communism in which all property is held in common.

Other anarchists are radical libertarians who dream of a "libertopia" that is stateless capitalism, in which each person possesses complete sovereignty over herself and her property.

Today's liberty song is called Justice Day and the lyrics are by Claire Wolfe of Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership. These lyrics have an anarchist bent, promoting the idea that when the lawmakers become lawless (rule of men rather than laws), then the outlaw becomes the champion of justice.

"When the criminals, criminals make all the laws,
then anyone breaking them fight just cause . . ."

The song begins with the immortal image from 1984: "You're the boot stomping on the human face--forever - -"

More anarchist imagery is heard with phrases like: " . . .Then out of the darkness the rebels arise, on that day, on that day the outlaw will rise . . ."




Even the person who posted this to YouTube thought it was "leftist", but JPFO is libertarian--and the most radical libertarians are anarchists in the spirit of Lysander Spooner. However, there are those libertarians who think of anarchy as an ideal to be dreamed, but as a matter of policy support minarchy--the concept of a state with very little power--and follow the spirit of the American Founders.

I am a libertarian who has dreamed the anarchist dream, but I also realize that restoring the Constitution, which provides us with a very limited government, is work enough for one lifetime.

Lieberman's Citizenship Bill: An Attack on American Justice

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty

to purchase a little Temporary Safety,

Deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

--Ben Franklin, 1759


Jumping on bandwagons in response to events rather than dealing with issues according to principle is the MO of a venal politician. We have many venal politicians in Washington and in our State Houses. The Progressive Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has recently indicated how little he cares for the basic principles of American Justice in his proposed bill that would allow the federal government to strip a person of his US Citizenship without a trial and conviction, simply because the government believes that he has "ties" to a terrorist organization. Here is Lieberman, breaking his Oath of Office by proposing a clearly unconstitutional bill:






This bill is one those act now, think later political moves that come in response to an incident--in this case, the failed car-bomb attack in Times Square last weekend. Since the accused car-bomber, Faisel Shahzad, is a naturalized American citizen, he has certain rights that are protected by the US Constitution. When he was arrested, he was given his Miranda Warning, which is familar to every avid watcher of TV cop shows from Dragnet to CSI. The Miranda Warning is a statement from the arresting officer(s) to the detainee, that explicates his due process rights during police investigation and interrogation. We've all heard it:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

When Shahzad was arrested a firestorm of controversy erupted over the fact that the Miranda Warning was read to him. And so Lieberman, supported by the Scott Brown of Massachusetts proposed that any US citizen who has been accused of "having ties" to a terrorist organization, should be stripped of his citizenship immediately--presumably so that the United States can interrogate him without telling him his rights.

This is wrong on principle, and pernicious as well, and since non-citizens also have certain due process rights in US Courts, it's useless as well.

On principle, the problem is that the United States Constitution guarantees that the rights of any person cannot be removed from him by the United States without due process of law:

"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . ." (Amendment V)

Note that it says "no person"--it applies to all human beings, not only to American citizens. However, in the Lieberman Bill, a citizen on the mere suspicion of undefined "connections" to terrorist organizations could be deprived of his citizenship and the rights and privileges thereof, without being even suspected of a crime, let alone actually tried and convicted for one. This is an outrageous violation of the liberty (at least) of American citizens. The due process rights in the Bill of Rights includes the right to presentment or indictment by a grand jury for capital and infamous crimes, the right to be free from double-jeopardy, the right to a speedy trial decided by a jury of one's peers, the right to be informed of the charges to be tried, the right to the assistance of counsel, and the right to be confronted by the accusers and witnesses. The Lieberman bill would make a person guilty by mere association, and strip him of his rights on suspicion of such, rendering punishment before he is tried and convicted.

I suppose this is the logical result of the years of trial by media which has culminated in the popular sentiment that a person who is forced to do the "perp walk" before TV cameras is guilty unless he proves himself innocent. And maybe not even then.

This proposed bill is pernicious because it gives the government unprecedented power to violate the rights of any person that it chooses not to like. How hard would it be to fabricate "ties" to some group or organization that the government decides is terrorist? Gentle Reader, if you think this is far-fetched consider the MIAC Fusion Center Report that placed ties with Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party, the use of the Gadsen Flag, and discussion of the US Constitution on par with domestic terrorism. Talking Idiots Heads on MSNBC have all but accused Talk Radio personalities such as Glenn Beck of commiting sedition ( something that should NEVER be a crime in a free country--but that's another blog).

This bill goes far beyond the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that caused mass protest across the United States, and even beyond Woodrow Wilson's persecution of those who spoke against US involvement in WWI. Under those equally unconstitutional laws, at the least the accused had to be indicted, tried and convicted prior to being stripped of any rights. Joe Lieberman would strip a person of rights before any trial could occur, and even without suspicion of any "crime."

The passage of this law could and would lead to the worst kind of terrorism: terrorism against the people by their own government and the ongoing repression of speech and thought by the state, and the outright suppression and persecution of dissent upon those opposed to specific policies.

Joe Lieberman wants to keep you safe by stripping you of your rights. He claims that this power would be very limited in scope. I remind you that never in history has a government arrogated to itself power that it did not use. In the immortal words of Judge Andrew Napolitano: "It is not government's job to keep you safe. It is government's job to keep you free!"

If you could be invited to one person's birthday party, whose would it be?

Mark Twain's

Ask me a question, I'll tell you no lies. But I might not answer. OTOH, sometimes I'll even blog it!

What 3 things do you think will become obsolete in the next ten years?

Music CD's, DVD's (just download movies), layers of unopenable packaging (I hope!)

Ask me a question, I'll tell you no lies. But I might not answer. OTOH, sometimes I'll even blog it!

T'was the Weekend Before Beltaine . . .

. . . Beltaine, the May cross-quarter day and the traditional beginning of summer in the old calendar. And here's what we awoke to . . .







Wet, windy snowfall on Friday morning . . .











Sunday morning, May 2, for crying out loud!
And the Cross-quarter is on Wednesday, May 5.

Maybe this year we will change the name of Sedillo Hill to "Never Summer Hill.











Snow on the rocks and the Agave.
I've seen it flurry here in May, and even June.
But stick?

It must be the Icelandic Volcano.

And maybe this is why although traditional summer begins in early May, meteorlogical summer does not begin until June 1.

That darn volcano--it put more stuff into the atmosphere in a few days than all the hippy-dippy yuppies and their Priuses and string grocery bags took out over the past 5.

Sigh. Anybody got any ideas for Volcano cap and tax?

On the Border: Bleeding Arizona

There are never complete parallels in history, but patterns can often be found, where events in the past have an eerie similarity to events in the present, mainly because they are occuring for similar reasons.

This past weekend, the governor of Arizona signed Senate Bill 1070 into Arizona state law. This law purports to do what the United States federal government has failed to do--stem the tide of illegal incursions across the border with Mexico.

This invasion of illegal border crossers is no longer composed of campesinos looking for work, but now includes larger and larger numbers of violent gang members (many from Central and South America), drug runners, and other criminals. In the past few years, border violence has increased, and ranchers of all backgrounds on the border have suffered property damage, violent crime and murder. This mayhem has spilled over from the border areas to the cities and towns of the southwestern United States. Last year, for example, after committing a number of other crimes, members of a violent South American gang shot up a Denny's Diner during a robbery on Albuquerque's West Side, killing and maiming innocent Americans for no apparent reason. Gruesome murders of drug runners and drug cartel lackeys have occured here in the Albuquerque area, and in Arizona drug-related kidnappings have made Phoenix one of the kidnapping capitols of the world.

According to the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, it is the job of the federal government to provide for a legal process for immigration and naturalization for those wishing to enter the United States. The States, in return for their entry into the Union, expect to enjoy the protection of their borders with other nation-states. And it is on the border that the United States has the authority to provide that protection.

But the federal government, over at least 20 years and spanning four presidencies, has refused to control the border with Mexico, thus refusing to protect the life, liberty and property of citizens of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. This is not a racial issue at all, since most of those border citizens are Mexican-American, Hispanic, Spanish, or in California, Latino. (The differences between these categories appears to be regional: in New Mexico, most of the locals were made citizens of the US via the treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago after the Mexican War, and they call themselves "Spanish.").

Arizona, in particular, has experienced what can only be called an invasion, (as has the People's Republic of California), and the federal government has not only refused to control the border--which IS its Constitutional duty--but it has also imposed unconstitutional controls on the border states--forcing them to provide education, free health care, and welfare to people who are here illegally. This has placed an enormous burden on the infrastructure of these states-- and schools, hospitals, and law enforcement have been severely challenged.

As I said a year or more ago in my first On the Border blog entry, these states--except for California, have actually called out the National Guard to try to do what the Feds will not; to control the border, in order to protect the life, liberty and property of citizens and legal immigrants living within US territory.

The new law signed by Governor Jan Brewer seems to be an act of desperation more than anything else. It is not a good law--it will further burden Arizona law enforcement, and will very likely be another instrument for the harrassment (intended or not) of American citizens who have a Spanish surname or accent, or who 'look Mexican.' No matter how desperate the situation, one's name, accent or genetic heritage is NOT probable cause. US Citizens have the right to travel within the borders of our own country without answering questions and without producing papers. The right to security in one's person, effects and papers is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and the power of the government to question, search and seize one's person or one's property is likewise severely limited by the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Further, it is likely that SCOTUS will eventually rule the law unconstitutional, and it is very likely that the governor and the state legislators of Arizona know it. In the meantime, the federal government is likely to refuse to cooperate with Arizona law enforcement, creating a greater burden on Arizona cops, and further animosity between Arizona's citizens and their own federal government. Thus this is a situation in which federal neglect of its duties and its refusal to resolve the issue of the illegal crossings of our southern border has resulted in a stand-off with a state, and that this stand-off is likely to spread. Bleeding Arizona is an omen of the shape of things to come.

In the history of the United States, we've seen such stand-offs before. I am thinking of 'Bleeding Kansas', which was a full-out border war between pro-slavery groups from southern Kansas and Missouri, and anti-slavery groups from Kansas. The tide of emigration to Kansas increased substantially, as members of both sides tried to increase their numbers to influence how Kansas would enter the Union--as a slave-state or free. At one time, Kansas actually had two competing territorial governments, and southern armies marched into Kansas to confront John Brown and his guerilla army. Although the proximate causes of Bleeding Kansas are different that what we see in Arizona, and the violence much more explosive than protestors in Phoenix throwing water bottles at the Arizona Capitol Police, the ultimate cause is the same: the refusal of the federal government to deal with an inflammatory issue because it would upset a delicate balance of power in Washington.

To put it bluntly, our Pols lack the courage to take real stands on the issue and develop a principled and Constitutional policy on immigration. The US can have open borders only if the US scuttles the welfare state; but rather than discuss the fundamental issues, our Pols pander to the electorate in order to retain their seats. They are the furthest thing from statesmen that this country has seen since the Compromise Generation of the 1840's and 1850's.

And so they put sovereign states like Arizona into the impossible position of either enforcing federal law at the state level without compensation, and without a Constitutional mandate, or choosing to go bankrupt as all the people who will be forced to pay for it flee the State because of the tax burden and because of the lawless violence on the border.

That Arizona is pushing back against the federal government is not surprising. But it does not auger well for the relationship between an increasingly out-of-touch imperial federal government that has long ago overreached its Constitutionally limited power, and the States, which are sovereign entities now expect to sit down and shut up for the sake of increasingly worthless federal reserve notes. The federal government is bankrupt, and will now try to stay in business a little longer by preying on the states. The push-back is inevitable.

Arizona should scrap the unworkable law, and instead tote up the costs of the federal neglect of its border with Mexico, and bill the federal government for it. New Mexico and Texas* should do the same. The bills will not be paid, but they will be a moral shot across the bow of the United States Ship of State.

*Arizona and Texas may actually do it; New Mexico--manana-land USA--is very unlikely to because it still receives two dollars from the Feds for every dollar sent in. We are working on it, but it will be a difficult sell here. I will not even suggest California do it. That state is currently positioning itself to bill the other states through the federal government for its own irresponsible spending.