Glenn Beck's Monkey Show: Overview

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
--Alexander Pope: Essay on Criticism. Part ii. Line 15.

If a little learning is dangerous, then no knowlege at all can be positively deadly. Or at least, embarrassing.

Yesterday, Glenn Beck made a fool of himself on his radio program.


As with many bright people, he did so by assuming he understood something that he did not. He did what he tells his audience not to do by making a judgment about a scientific theory on the fly, and it was clear that he had no clue what the modern theory of evolution actually is and what it is not.


For the record, I listen to Beck several times a week, although I have been listening less and less this fall because it is getting harder and harder to actually hear Glenn make his point. This is because in the past year he has brought on a friend from Texas, Pat Gray, who generally distracts Glenn from his more serious points, causing a number of listeners, including me, to reach for the dial. Pat Gray appears to be far less thoughtful than Glenn, and is clearly not as well read. When the banter begins, it devolves quickly and the show becomes frustratingly difficult to follow, and downright silly. I don't have time for that, and clearly from discussions with other thoughtful patriots, neither do they.


That said, it is quite clear that Glenn Beck is not stupid, as many of the leftist blogs claim. The so-called discussions of this issue at places like the Huffington Post come across as equally ignorant and worse, devolve to ad hominen statements. There is a large difference between rational disagreement and the kind of mean-spirited, angry, profanity-driven drivel that the lefties regularly spew out against Beck. However, this does not excuse Glenn from the equally ignorant attack on the theory of evolution that he made during a clearly ADD hour on his show yesterday.


Most laymen do not understand the modern theory of evolution. It is not that it is not understandable or even all that complex, though wading through the plethora of evidence for it takes time and study. It is that it has either been taught badly or not taught at all. This is the fault of the generally poor science teaching that goes on in America's K-12 institutions, private and public. With very few exceptions K-12 science education has treated the discipline as a series of disconnected facts that must be committed to memory and regurgitated, rather than as a method for discovering how the physical universe works using observation through our senses and their extensions. It is also the fault of a political divide that has been handled badly by scientists, creating a hostility towards all science among those who are expected to pay for it all without having the faintest idea of what it actually is. (I will have more to say about this later).


Collectivists and progressives at the extremes of both political parties have seized on this divide, and have used it to their own political advantage. On the right, it has been used to promote a kind of populist know-nothingism that lets those pols manipulate the religious passion of their constituents for Christian dominionism and theocracy. On the left, it has been used to promote an agenda of thinly disguised eugenics in which a scientific theory has been hijacked to bolster a collectivist ideology and a socialist agenda. (I have already said a bit about this here). It is clear that neither left nor right has the intellectual high ground here, nor the moral decency to promote and appreciate thoughtful and intelligent ideation among their constituents. A pox on both their houses!


Glenn Beck's ignorant diatribe betrayed several problems. One is that his notion of the scientific theory of evolution betrays an ignorance not only of the theory itself, but of science in general, and how the work of science is done. It is clear that because he has heard twaddle from equally ignorant others, he believes he knows what it is without having actually studied it. He would not make such statements in regard to areas he actually knows something about. So he has made an error of knowlege compounded by a certain ignorant arrogance, in that he did not question his lack of education in the field of science. Clearly his motto to "question everything" was left behind as he thoughtlessly spewed forth, compounding his embarrassment of ignorance with every sentence.


Glenn also has a problem organizing his thoughts that was clearly evident here, and in other monologues. His reasoning starts out with a good series of propositions and then his thinking stops at a certain point, and he rarely gets to the logical conclusion of his thought. Often he makes connections that seem to be leading somewhere interesting, and then he veers off, unable to complete the line of reasoning. He stops short and leaves his listeners in confusion or yelling at radio, "finish it, man!" Part of the problem here is the aforementioned Pat Gray, who nit-picks unimportant diction rather than letting the reasoning come to the conclusion of thought before cleaning up the proposition. Another part of the problem is that ADD that I mentioned earlier. Glenn has made no secret of it, as indeed he can't. Glenn distracts himself, going down rabbit-holes, and on snipe-hunts of thought, chasing extraneous thoughts prior to making a conclusion. And being that distractable means that the conclusion is never made.


Finally, Glenn Beck has a philosophical problem, and this is the most important. Although he reasons well up to a point, he often cannot bring the conclusion home, because he cannot or will not take his ideas to the most logical conclusion. This is not limited to his attacks on science, but can also be heard in other topics he discusses. For example, if Beck really believes in the sovereignty of the individual, which is clearly stated in the 9 Principles of his 9-12 project, then he cannot continue to advocate for the social control that is part and parcel of conservative political thought. Although he says that he is libertarian in thought, and that he trusts the American people, he cannot quite match his thought to those words. Lately, as Glenn has become increasingly a preacher in the Great Awakening style of Jonathan Edwards or George Whitfield, I have begun to suspect that this inability to bring home the most logical conclusion to his chain of reasoning may lie in the contradiction between the idea that human beings are fit for liberty, and his religious notion that man is fatally flawed by original sin.

Two of these problems are weighty enough to deserve blog entries of their own, and so I shall go into much more detail about Glenn's fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance with respect to the modern theory of evolution in my second part. In the third, I shall address the philosophical knots he mananged to contort himself into with his claim that those who accept the evidence for evolution by natural selection must deny the inherent nature of the rights of man. The ignorance of the first leads directly to the ignorance of the second. That is, the misunderstanding and misapprehensions that Glenn speaks with regard to what Dennett calls "Darwin's dangerous idea", lead directly to his ignorance of the history of the idea, and the wicked stepchildren it has been distorted to create: Social Darwinism and Lysenkoism. The first, in the hands of the American Progressives, gave us eugenics and forced sterilization, and the second, in the hands of Soviet Communists, gave us the planned famine that killed millions of Kulaks.

These discussions are worth taking a bit of time and blog-space to have, because the issues that Darwinian evolution bring up, and the ignorance of what the theory actually means, is widespread, and not limited to one political pole. If the religious right has used such ignorance to advance their cause of social control, the left has turned a scientific theory into a dogma and ideology to be decided not by the evidence, and not by hypothesis testing, but through the ideology of consensus science, something that never was and never can be. This has grave implications for new and unfounded pseudo-scientific theory that is more akin to religion than it is to science: global warming. The secular, collectivist left is using this idea to advance their own agenda of social control. And the implications are just as totalitarian as anything your hot-farting fundamentalist dominionist can dream up.

The Trials and Tribulations of Changing Operating Systems

You think it would be fairly easy to do this stuff. After many trials and tribulations with Windows Vista--problems like automatic shut-downs, frequent error messages, problems with the hard drive--I decided to go to a Linux OS, thinking it would work better with my system and make my life easier.

The first trial was with Mandriva. It seemed good at first, but there were some problems. Like a sound system that sometimes did not let me control the volume, and problems with the way files were stored. It was not logical to me and I was forever looking for files. The Home folder was a complete mystery to me--I didn't know it existed, and therefore couldn't find files. There were other problems. Like pictures. The Mandriva photo manager did not allow me to rotate pictures, so all of my portrait view pictures would load onto Blogger and Facebook sideways and upside down. I couldn't use them.

After a few weeks of this, I was ready to bag Linux altogether, and sent my friend the Techno-Wizard a message saying so. He suggested that we partition the drive and change out from Mandriva to a more logically formatted Linux System. He suggested Ubuntu. I agreed, and he took my machine home to do the deed. I picked it up again last Thursday, and having a deadline to get a Business Plan Questionnaire done, I logged into Ubuntu. I thought I should log into Ubuntu because when the Techno-Wizard came to take my computer, I had been working on that document, and done about two hours worth of work. But no documents existed at Ubuntu.

Oh. The Home folder had been loaded on Windows.
So I logged into Windows.
After some searching, I found that the Home Folder had been loaded there under an abbreviation of my name.
But even after loading Open Office, I could not download the files.
We think its empty. Well actually, the Techno-Wizard does.
Me, I USE computers. And I hate it when they DON"T WORK like I expect.
You've heard of Road Rage?
You've heard of PMS?
Hell hath no fury like this woman confronted with a deadline and confounded by empty files and lost folders.
And upside-down pictures!

But Windows is such a pain, that I am willing to deal with fury in order to get to something better. And better do it now, while I still have some estrogen--albeit it comes in unpredictable flashes-- to protect my heart from the sudden escalation of fight-or-flight.

Patience, they say, is a virtue.

Here is a You Tube video from College Humor that puts this all into perspective:




Ubuntu? I'm going to learn Ubuntu.

Just one question:

Where the heck do they get these names?

Sleepers, Awake!

"Why, oh why didn't I take the Blue Pill?"

This tongue-in-cheek lament can be seen on the Facebook walls of a number of people involved one way or another in the R3volution and in the various (dis) organizations that make up the patriot movement. It is a metaphor refering to the first of The Matrix movies. In the Matrix universe, the reality that most of humanity perceives as ordinary is contrived by the machine world; it is a dream that is occuring while humanity is enslaved to provide energy to the machines who rule the earth. The movie begins with the character Neo living inside this reality, unaware. He is recruited by Morpheus, a rebel leader, because he has found clues to the Matrix reality. He is confronted with a choice:

Morpheus: The Matrix . . .is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you know, you were born into bondage . . . A prison for you mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.
You take the blue pill, you wake up in your bed and the story ends. You believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep this rabbit hole goes.
--The Matrix, 1999


The plot requires that Neo take the Red Pill, he stays in Wonderland, and he finds out what the Matrix is. But the movie is not only about what happens when Neo takes the red pill. It also asks the question: Is it better to know the truth, or does it make us happier to live in the dream? Do we really want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes, or are we better off staying on our exercise wheel like a gerbil in a cage?

But with respect to what is happening to our country--what has been done to enslave our minds, to convince us that we have no rights, and to take our liberty, there is no unitary truth. Our enslavement has not been carried out by a unitary evil that cannot be understood fully by us. To some extent, what has happened to us has been done to us; our enslavement has been planned and executed over a very long period of time by those who believe that human freedom gets in the way of the collective progress of humanity. But to another extent, what has happened to us has been done by us; it is far easier to not be responsible for ourselves and for what we do, but to let others, portrayed as those who are wiser and better, and who are willing to sacrificially shoulder responsibility, to live for us.

And unlike Neo in the Matrix, taking the red pill and learning the truth is not a once and for all awakening. Rather, it seems, we take the red pill in stages, deciding whether to swallow, whether to retch, and then we live straddling two realities: the everyday reality of work and bills and taxes, and the reality that as we live this way, our politicians and so-called world leaders are every so surely, and somewhat blindly, leading us into the narrow places with the comcommitant loss of liberty and personal responsibility.

Lately, there has been some consternation among those who have been at this fight for liberty for a while.

Last year, we had patriots boiling out into the streets, protesting. They were forming a myriad of committees, groups and organizations. There was a great deal of energy. But the number of such groups, each focused on a different part of the problem, while broad, was not very deep. Now the recent sleepers seem to be focused on the upcoming election alone, and firmly denying the reality that both major parties, and nearly all of the politicians, remain uninterested in liberty and are far more focused on their own power and prestige. Elections are about money and lies and winning. They are not about hope and change and liberty. No matter how convincing the ads on TV may be.

And those who have been trying to educate the nascent awakeners, those who have been working at developing in the Tea Party and other patriot groups a depth of understanding about the nature of Liberty, are seeing our efforts rebuffed. "Why spend the time and money to learn about the Constitution?" the newly-awakened ones seem to be saying. "Why do the hard work, when we can enjoy the bread and circuses of elections, and perhaps we can go back to sleep when the easy way works, and we can go back to our dream?"
To put it bluntly, at this point they don't want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes. It is a lot easier to think it is a matter of who sits in Congress and in the White House.

And so it becomes easy to imagine that the time has come to admit defeat, to dissolve our groups and committees and Tea Parties. To acquiesce to the loss of our liberty. It is a dangerous moment, for the freedom and liberty endowed to us and to our children is at stake. And at the risk of sounding like the conspiracists that I have critiqued: That's what the ubiquitous "they" want us to believe.

Today I wrote to someone discouraged and angry that NMPA had to cancel a Constitution class with a national speaker. A class that would have brought some depth to the shallow awakenings that need nuturing. "We know," one of the NMPA leaders said, "That the people need this knowledge to sustain their passion. But they don't seem to know it."
And that is so discouraging that one of our members suggested that we are talking about dismantling the NMPA altogether.

And I have my moments like that, too.
But I think there are real enemies of liberty who have control of our government. And they have a dream of a great collective of humanity marching in lockstep into the bright and conformist future. And there will be no room for the outliers and the misfits that love liberty in that world. And in the meantime, those who have taken the red pill, and put it in their mouths, and swallowed enough reality to understand what we face, and what it will take to return America to the path of liberty and individual rights, really wonder whether we should have taken the blue pill instead.

This is a natural part of letting go of a dream, of a way of life that was easy and good and fun. It is grief that we are dealing with, as we realize that we are now living in a country that is far different than the one into which we were born, and we are confronting a future that is far different from that which we were promised. And now the work is becoming harder, and we have disappointments as the people that we have been counting on to finally join us and make the return to liberty real turn their backs on what we know is needed to bring depth and principle to the awakening passion.

At this point we find ourselves saying: "Why, oh why didn't I take the blue pill?

But we know that there are a number of reasons for these disappointing setbacks: lack of organization and publicity efforts on our part, the focus most people have on the
upcoming election and their belief that the Pols on the R side will save us,
and the economic situation that has people scared enough to jump from one
thing to another in search of the easy answers that don't exist. We forget,
those of us who have been at this for a while and/or those of us who have
taken the red pill and can't go back, that the majority of the people who
have woken up don't have a coherent picture of what the problem is, how
intractable it is, and what it is actually going to take to restore the
Constitution and rebuild our government based on that document.

One example: The situation with our monetary system and the economy is so
bad, and the United States is in the muck so deep, that the whole thing is
going to have collapse and be rebuilt. It is hard to imagine this for those
of us who have been thinking about it for a while, and it is nigh unto
impossible to get even a reasonable minority of the people who are certain
that there is something wrong to understand that the only way to liberty is
through the storm that is coming, and that this storm is going to crush the
hopes and dreams of several generations who's focus has been on keeping things the
way they are. The thing is not sustainable. It violates the laws of
thermodynamics by which energy operates. Most people do not get that money
is like a form of energy--the money is man-made, but what it represents is
not.

But think of this again: this crisis is going to crush the hopes and dreams
of several generations who's focus has been on keeping things the way they are. To
come out the other side with our liberty intact--or actually
reconstructed--will require a great deal of courage to face the pain of
letting go of those old hopes and dreams and creating new ones in their
places. The people who are waking up must go through the process of letting
go, just as we all are doing to one extent or another as reality keeps
hitting us like waves of cold water.

The stages of mourning are relevant here: we come out Denial, the first
stage, when we wake up and take the red pill. Then comes the second stage,
Anger, which is incredibly energizing. The wakened sleepers spent last
summer and fall in Anger, I think, believing that if they let their
government know their feelings, everything would change. The transition to
stage three happened when Obamacare was passed. At that time, the wind was
taken out of the sails of the nascent patriot anger. I think most of the Tea
Party people and the 9-12 movement have moved into stage three, Bargaining.
They believe that if only we elect more people with R's next to their name
in November, then we can just skip this Crisis. That all will be well, and we
can then hit the snooze button, pick up the remote and roll over for a well
deserved nap after all that hard work of calling Congress and protesting and
expressing righteous indignation.

But after the bargaining does not work, what then? That is when the
transition to the most dangerous stage of grief happens. Depression. The
more attached people have been to what they are losing, the longer and
deeper this stage becomes. And this is where NMPA, Libertarians, the
Constitution Party, and other people who have been through the grief that
comes in the aftermath of swallowing the red pill are so important.
Depression is so dangerous, because that is when people give up. They have
tried by force of Denial, Anger and Bargaining to change reality. And they
couldn't. Depression is when the knowledge that going back to before is
impossible. But during this stage it is also easy to allow others to begin
to control one's destiny. In our case, to be very blunt, it is easy to
acquiesce to slavery. And in some important way that I cannot yet
articulate, I believe that NMPA, among others, was created for the work of
bringing all of us to the Acceptance of what must happen and what hard work
we must take on in order to come through this Crisis as a free people.

It is going to take a hard labor to bring forth a new birth of freedom for
ourselves and our children. Through organizations, NMPA and others, we have the opportunity to be midwives for that renewal of our liberty.

But this we know for sure, after taking the red pill, it is impossible to see the world the same again. We cannot go back. We cannot unknow what we have learned. We are no longer innocent. And this is not necessarily bad news. For each day brings new promise, especially in the midst of a great Crisis.

"Sleepers, awake! Unpack your dreams and carry them forth! This is the day the Lord has made! My soul rejoices in the sun's slanted rays!"--Rabbi Shefa Gold

My Resignation from Campaign for Liberty Albuquerque

I am beating this horse long after it has expired, but I want a record of this letter on my blog. If you are "tired of people running to defend Israel all the time" as one of my correspondents complained, then skip this entry. I truly wish I did not have to write this Letter of Resignation. Unfortunately, the people in question could not admit that accusing Israel of stealing organs, and accusing American Jews of dual loyalty is not exactly calculated to win them friends and influence. So after a week of futile discussion, I sent them this:

Dear Members of Campaign for Liberty Albuquerque,

I have decided based on the e-mails that I have received in the past few weeks, e-mails which were also available on the world-wide web at the Albuquerque Campaign for Liberty Meet-Up, that I do not wish to be associated with Campaign for Liberty Albuquerque and will therefore be severing my relationship and support of Campaign for Liberty. I have stated my concerns to the membership of Campaign for Liberty, and have seen little evidence that they will be addressed. I have therefore decided to end my association with the group. This is entirely a personal decision based on my my experience that one or a few members of the group have an unreasonable attachment to attacking the state of Israel using some very old anti-Semitic accusations that will in the end deter the group from the goals originally stated.

I have said that ant-Semitic accusations have been sent out to the group through the official e-mail list. My concerns have been met with the statement that these e-mails are merely criticism of Israel and that I am advocating censorship and theocracy (?) by stating my concerns. Therefore, I do want to address the issue of anti-Semitism as opposed to criticism of Israel before I end my association.

Criticism of the State of Israel with respect to specific policies is not anti-Semitic, nor is criticism of the government of Israel or of specific politicians who develop and implement policy. All of this is behavior normal to polite and reasoned discourse. It is common to see such criticism within the newspapers published in Israel as well as in the United States. Neither is criticism of the role of the United States in providing support for or reaction against Israeli policy anti-Semitism. It is certainly not anti-Semitic to say--as I have said a great many times in many different forums--that the United States ought to withdraw all foreign aid, including aid to Israel.

However, the stuff that one individual put up on the Campaign for Liberty forum is not criticism of Israel. Rather it is the stuff of old European anti-Semitism as featured in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and predating that forgery, it goes back to the ancient and medieval periods in Europe. For example, the member in question accuses the State of Israel of stealing the organs of Palestinian corpses as a matter of policy. This is the blood libel. The only difference in this formulation, is that it is Israel that stand in by proxy for the Jewish people. The source of much of such accusations is the propaganda of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist terrorist organizations, and goes back to the alliance of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Nazi Germany. In the Arabic press, those sources do not differentiate between Israel and Jews, and indeed accuse the Jewish people as a whole of this updated version of the blood libel. In the English versions they simply replace the word for Jew with the word for Israel. In this new form of anti-Semitism, Israel stands in as a proxy for Jews. This kind of unreasoned accusation against the Jewish people as Jews has a long historical record; one that the member is likely ignorant of though he accepts it without question when the accusation supports his prejudices.

The statement that support of Israel is treason to the United States comes from an accusation of Jewish dual loyalty that goes back into European history to long before the United States existed. It was made by the Nazis and their ally the Grand Mufti. It is the same accusation made in the Dreyfuss Affair, and it was the reason that Jews in Russia were deprived of their rights and interred in the Pale of Settlement. In medieval times, it was the reason that Jews were kept in ghettos, and were forced outside the regular medieval hierarchy of peasant-landed gentry-noble-king. The accusation goes back further to the Christian Code of Justinian, and before that to the various conquerers of the ancient world. For those of you who read the Bible, this same notion goes back to Exodus:

"Now a new king arose in Egypt who did not know Joseph. He said to his people: Behold! The people of the sons of Israel are mightier and more numerous than we. Come let us deal wisely with them, or else they will multiply and join themselves with those that hate us, and fight against us . . ." (Exodus 1:8-10)

Both accusations leveled on the e-mail list and at the forum are very old anti-Semitic tropes that have been recast as the same kind of blanket accusations against the Jewish State and its citizens. They are part of a larger effort to delegitimize the State of Israel, which is demonized by anti-Semites in the same way that they once demonized the Jewish people as a whole. The purpose of these accusations is to make the case that Israel should not exist and should be destroyed because it is the Jewish State. No other country has its very existence threatened in this way, even those that burn widows alive on the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands or those that stone women accused of adultery. Those are the predictable actions of real theocracies. Israel, which is imperfect as is any human institution, is not a theocracy. It is a democracy with a demonstrated record of law that supports the rights of its citizens. Oddly enough the states from which such accusations arise are theocracies, or wish to become one.

That this is not criticism of policy is obvious from the fact that no evidence is presented to the truth of these accusations, and that no reputable journalist has ever published any such story duly backed up with evidence in a well-referenced article, even in those publications that are generally critical of Israel.

Criticism of policy does not include blanket statements such as "support for Israel is treason to the United States", which automatically makes traitors of nearly every American Jew, regardless of his or her stance on specific issues. Legitimate critical concern about policy does not include "big lies" that are repeated over and over in order to get people to believe them. Criticism ends where reflexive blame of Israel for everything bad that happens in the world begins. That is not criticism it is demonization. And the very form that this demonization takes comes from the same untrue and sensational accusations made against Jews from time immemorial. It is a far greater insult than criticism to deny Israel the same right to self-defense as it routinely understood to be the right of every other country.

I do not wish to be associated with an organization that tolerates such behavior. There is a difference between censorship (of which I have been accused) and the censure of a statement that not only detracts from the purpose of the organization, that bespeaks a terrible prejudice, and that supports the notion of collective responsibility, but which is also entirely a lie.

I do not believe that Ron Paul sanctions such notions, and I do not think he knows of this cancer eating away at the heart of the organizations that support him.There is a great difference between the principled libertarian stance that opposes the confiscation of money from the citizens of the United States for purposes other than those outlined in the Constitution, as opposed to casting all blame on Israel for all problems created by foreign aid to multiple countries by way of the decisions made by the Congress and tolerated by Americans. There is a difference between imagining how an interventionist foreign policy might create conditions for the 9-11 murder of American civilians, and excusing the murderers by blaming the victims. However, so long as such behavior is tolerated on forums dedicated to Dr. Paul's presidential campaign, I believe that he will not have a snowball's chance in hell of even getting into the debates, let alone getting his name on the general election ballot. He will inevitably be inaccurately tarred with the same brush that accurately describes some of his supporters.

For these reasons, I choose not to put my time and effort into a group that has, with the exception of a few individuals, acquiesced to the statement of an ideology marked by the demonization of Israel, and has tolerated anti-Semitism by proxy through that demonization. I cannot imagine supporting a candidate for president whose followers support such statements. Accordingly, in order to protect my name from association with these ideas tolerated on the New Mexico Campaign for Liberty, I have made my stance clear on my web-log, and I am informing my other friends and associates in the various liberty organizations of my decision and the reasons for it by including them in the address lines of this e-mail. I have also sent an inquiry to the national Campaign for Liberty asking whether they, as a matter of policy, support such statements in order to determine whether to further support the organization at the level. I have also sent such a question to the Ron Paul people, for the same reason.

Elisheva Levin

Questions? Concerns? Complaints? Comments are open.

Irrational Patriotism and the Freedom of Association: The Case Against New Mexico Campaign for Liberty

Being libertarian and Jewish while being active in the Patriot Movement is interesting and sometimes maddening. Most of the people I encounter within it are conservative, and although we disagree on certain fundamental principles, they are rational in their approach to news and events. We may understand them differently, and often I find myself taking the more radical stand. For example, they oppose illegal immigration and support the Arizona law, whereas I oppose the welfare state and the war on drugs that make free movement across the border a problem. In this case, we both know that there is an invasion going on across our southern border, and we both know that the lives, liberty and property of Americans living near the border are threatened, but we respond to that knowledge from somewhat different perspectives. As a libertarian, I see the source of the problem differently, precisely because I do not accept the notion that the government has any business regulating drugs or "spreading the wealth around." However, we can talk with one another, attempt to bridge differences, and work together on our mutual goal: to restore the Constitution of the United States.

But just as there is a wing nut fringe on the left--those who tell us that Mao is a philosopher and equal to Mother Teresa in charity and those who believe that Hugo Chavez is a statesman--so there are wing nuts operating on the fringe of the patriot movement. They are far from the majority, and unlike the wing-nuts on the left who seem to surround the president of the United States these days, they have no power, except that of chasing reasonable people away from patriot groups. They are often the people who end up creating the conditions for small groups to engage in infighting and to finally fall apart from lack of participation.

My latest experience in this regard:

I have supported Campaign for Liberty for over a year, and I have supported Ron Paul as one of the few principled members of Congress, and for his primarily constitutional stances on many issues. However, I do reserve the right to disagree, as we all should, based on differences with respect to issues. In that time I have noticed the acceptance of a kind of post-modernism among many of Ron Paul's young followers, that is combined with what appears to be a deliberate illiteracy and a terrible ignorance of history and the values of Western culture. This leads to an uncritical acceptance without reason of whatever new conspiracy theory* happens to hit the internet. Sometimes these theories have a kernel of truth, but have been generalized to such an extent that they become meaningless.

* NOTE: I am using the term "conspiracy theory" in the neutral sense rather than the pejorative sense. That is, I accept that there are conspiracies in the world, and that people really do gather together to secretly plan and accomplish illegal and immoral actions. However, a conspiracy theory is a claim, not a fact, until it is substantiated with evidence. Although conspiracies do happen, and at every level, every bad thing that happens in the world is not necessarily a conspiracy, there is room for human error and folly in history.

Further, this generalization leads to a stance of powerlessness in the face of this conspiracy theorizing that is a type of conspiracism, which is the tendency to accept that everything bad that happens in the world has been engineered by the ubiquitous "they" who have god-like powers and have so brainwashed humanity that they control every decision made by every person on earth. Thus, it becomes acceptable to sit and complain, but it also becomes unnecessary to actually develop solutions or to do anything about the problem--whatever it is--because "they" are in control.

Twisting together threads involving an international banking conspiracy (which has a basis in truth but has been over-generalized), and the old myth of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world (which has no truth), some of Ron Paul's young supporters have uncritically bought into a particularly ugly form of anti-Semitism that hails from the left. They have learned that making anti-Semitic statements outright is frowned upon by most Americans, but that by couching their anti-Semitic sentiments as criticism of Israel, they can claim the moral high ground, and turn and accuse those who point out that the demonization and delegitimation of Israel is anti-Semitic of "censoring" their "criticism" of Israel.

Sometimes I think that these young Ron Paul supporters are not only illiterate with respect to history, but that they are also illiterate with respect to vocabulary, and mistake the term "censor" for the term "censure". There is a difference. But more to the point, without any sense of time or history--which was robbed from them by their post-modernist education--these young people are cannon fodder for any demagogue that begins by claiming to be a champion of liberty and freedom. Ron Paul is a legitimate champion of liberty. He is not a demagogue. But when an historically innocent young person enters the heady waters of the Ron Paul pages, message boards, blogs and discussion groups, his uncritical desire to appear smart in the new milieu is ripe for the demagogic sharks that inhabit the dark waters at the edge of the reef. It is a kind of modern gnosticism.

This is exactly what is happening with the local Ron Paul group, called Campaign for Liberty New Mexico. One person has gotten control of the message boards at the New Mexico Campaign for Liberty Meet-Up group. He has done so by re-posting lurid, over-the-top "criticism" of Israel, much of which would set off the alarm bells of a critical reader. These re-posts come from the kinds of internet sources that have replaced the yellow journalism and propaganda rags of the first Progressive Era in the early 1900's.

For example, a few weeks ago he re-posted an article that claimed that Israel has been caught red-handed stealing organs from Palestinian corpses for the purpose of selling them in the illegal organ trade. That this is irrational from a medical standpoint is the least of it; the article supports a clearly modern form of the blood libel, and can be traced to the standard Palestinian blood libel claim that Jews are ritually murdering Palestinian children to put their blood in the Passover Matzot. (Never mind that the only ritual murders that are proven have been done by Islamists who have slit the throats of Jews like Danny Pearl in some sort of bizarre human sacrifice while shouting "Allahu akbar!" for the You Tube cameras. I guess the point of demonization is to accuse your enemy of your own darkest acts).

At that point, I wrote to this young man asking to be removed from his e-mail list. I had received the post by e-mail and had not realized that the 'announcements' were going out via the Meet-Up Group.

A week or so later, I received another post from this young man, entitled "Support for Israel is Treason!!!!" (multiple exclamation points in the original). Again linking to some Alex-Jones-type breathlessly yellow journalism, he wrote a page-long one paragraph screed complete with the capitalization, multiple exclamation points, bad-grammar and misspelled words that I have come to expect from these young and illiterate intellectual wanna-be's.

Unfortunately, I took the bait and tried to appeal to the reasonable people who might be reading this stuff. I wrote the usual rational arguments and was promptly accused of attempting the censor ideas on the website. This was clearly false since there was barely an idea present in the mishmash of unfounded rumor and over-the-top emotionalism in the post and in the response to my response. When I saw that on the e-mail responses, this young man was being lauded by a few supporters as a visionary patriot, I did some further research. I checked out the on-line message board at the Campaign for Liberty New Mexico Meet-up site. And there I saw that there were some healthy discussions about other topics posted by other members. However, this young man's posts rarely had any responses--it's hard to respond to such irrationality effectively--and that further his new topics were almost all intended to demonize Israel.

What had happened was that this young man had effectively stopped any censure of his views and stopped any argument or any censure of the nature of his posts by effectively using the argument that he was being "censored" for criticizing Israel. Those who lauded him responded, and everyone else apparently did not want to even be associated with such arguments. Further, this young man has put himself up as the next leader of the group through an emotional campaign of screeds against the current group leader, and is likely to become the leader of the group. Whereby he will continue the kind of ranting and emotional demagoguery until the group becomes an ineffective splinter, unable to campaign effectively for Ron Paul because it has become associated with irrational attacks on anyone who doesn't buy the latest conspiracy theory, or who refuses to be associated with demonization of Israel--this guy's pet theory.

I am certainly among those who refuses to be associated with this back-door anti-Semitism. I am well aware of what it is and where it will lead. I have--like the naive scholar that I am--futilely tried to point out the inevitable splintering and the inevitable end that will follow, as this young man and his few followers become more and more isolated until there is nothing left of the original group or its mission. Of course, I have played right into the hands of the demagogue, who has in turn accused me of being part of the world-wide Jewish conspiracy that is trying to silence him because he has the rare truth that Israel is the point of that conspiracy. There is no reason in it, and a rational person will do what I have done. I have disassociated myself with this group not only because I am a Jew, but because I do not want my good name ruined by association with such irrationality.


Unfortunately, this kind of thing drives the splintering of patriot groups often enough that the whole of the movement can be easily tarred with the same brush, rendering the vast majority of patriot positions invisible. It is a problem. It allows the same kind of demonization of the patriots out there that has been done against Israel. It can be used by the progressives and the left to divide and conquer, should we allow such people as the young man I described above to speak for us. And we will be admonished to do so by people who worship at the altar of unity. But unity for the sake of unity is a false god; it has no power. The power to accomplish our goal comes from the Principles of Liberty.

Those of us who want to be successful in the restoration of the Constitution must focus on these principles. That all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. That among them are the rights to life, liberty and property. That governments are instituted by the individuals in order to protect those rights.

Those of us who want to be successful must also disassociate ourselves with anyone who promotes unfounded conspiracies, and who participates in the demonization of any person or group. Such behavior takes us off the path and promotes endless internal debate that does not rise to the level of reasoned argument. It can't, being essentially irrational in its very nature. The danger of this particular time is to be carried off track and to fall spectacularly from the heights of principle to the depths of populism and demagoguery. We must not do it. We cannot stop it happening at the fringes, but we cannot buy into it or allow it to destroy the essence of the cause of liberty.

What will happen to the Ron Paul R3volution itself is not our concern. I think elections, although important to slowing down the destruction of our liberty, are not the fundamental answer to the problem. Further, Ron Paul sparked the enthusiasm of many young people for liberty. He cured the apathy of many libertarians, like me, who had given up on seeing liberty restored in our own day. But he also inspired true believers who, in their their terrible ignorance and adulation will do what true believers tend to do, and accept any claim associated with him uncritically. And they will turn on him when he disappoints their sanctification of a mere mortal by acting rationally. Indeed, many have done so already, disappointed that he ended his 2008 campaign when it became clear that he was not going to even place in the primaries.

For myself, the way is clear. I cannot be associated with Campaign for Liberty New Mexico. And I need to do a little research to see where Campaign for Liberty national stands on these questions. If there is any hint of anti-Semitism by proxy, or the uncritical support of other such demonization, then I cannot be associated with it either. I will withdraw my support, no matter how good the strategy or how strong the group appears to be.

My grandma Fran used to say to me: "Show me your friends, I'll show you your future." And as an adult I appreciated her down-to-earth wisdom. I have applied it to examining the associations of politicians, and that is ultimately why I do not trust the current President of the United States to support my liberty. He surrounds himself with outright communists and revolutionaries, with admirers of murderers like Mao.

I cannot be friends with anti-Semites--even those who substitute Israel in order to prevaricate upon their actual sentiments. And I understand now what it means to say so. Although I value the right of anyone to have his say, I do not value indiscriminate acceptance of what he says. I simply cannot be associated with unreason that is likely to lead nowhere good. I cannot befriend anti-Semites. To do so would be a suicidal denial of the value of my own identity and being.

"Choose life," we are commanded. "That you and your children might live."

About Lily: A Difficult Decision

During the past few days I spent my 15 minute writing period discussing Lily, her behavior problems, how they have intensified over the past 6 months, and the difficult decisions that must be made about this situation. Dr. Nichol was, in the end, very frank about the stark choice that we face. He was quite clear that if we decide to keep Lily in the household, we would never be able to let our guard down regarding her for the rest of her life, even if we use medications and behavior modification, spending thousands--primarily on the training--she will remain untrustworthy. The only option to removing her from our household is euthanasia. Or as we used to say in those days when the Engineering Geek and I were growing up, putting the dog down. And the decision remains ours. He did not tell us what to do.

From the outside it looks like an easy decision: the dog is displaying more and more fear-based aggression, and the target is generally Shayna, the low dog on the totem pole, the dog who is generally quiet and shy. The obvious thing to do is to put the difficult dog down and to let the shy and quiet dog blossom. Except. . . except that such black and white pictures of the two different canine temperaments happens only in mediocre novels and B-movies.

Although Lily has indeed been showing more and more incidents of aggression towards Shayna, she is still a sweet and obedient dog with us, and is a pleasure to have around most of the time. Since consulting our very capable trainer, Casey, we have instituted a program of home training and she not only has learned to sit, stay, and down-stay, but she is beginning to come when she is called. She is affectionate, and she enjoys Umbrae's company much of the day in the dog run without incident. All of this makes it very difficult to contemplate putting a healthy dog down.

And Shayna's shyness is not all sweetness and light. It has the dark side of fear to it. Shayna will snap if she is cornered by a person, especially a large male person. She never makes contact, and the snarl and snap are a warning: "Look at these teeth and leave me alone!" If she is not cornered, her MO is to run to her "office" (her crate) and hide. She is very reactive to loud noises--pots and pans banging, a door slamming in the wind--and she is absolutely melded to her routine. Although all dogs are creatures of routine, Shayna gets physically ill when it is changed. Shayna can be said to be on sensory overload a good deal of the time, and she manages her anxiety with routine. She, too, will likely need a course of anti-anxiety medications and has already begun training--the beginning of her behavior modification.

By now, the gentle reader may be wondering why it is Lily's behavior and not Shayna's that has created the need for the decision that we are about to make. The difference lies in the nature of the behavior problem. Although both dogs are reactive, Lily's reaction consists of an all-out attack. Further, she has not only attacked and physically injured dogs, she goes after strangers and has come close to injuring people. And that is a line that cannot be allowed to be crossed. Although during the current escalation of aggression, Lily has only attacked other dogs, this must not be construed to mean that it will always be so. Lily cannot be trusted with other people. Ever.

It is also a grave concern that Lily attacked and injured Shayna in the dog run, when we were not there. Usually dogs do not fight when alone. When they fight--which is more common among females*--they tend to fight over resources. Food. The dog bed. Attention. And a person can generally end the fight by walking away. That she attacked when we were not there is very abnormal behavior and is impossible to predict or prevent except by keeping the two dogs completely separate. Forever.

*Female-upon-female fighting is very common. Male-upon-male is a distant second. And male-upon-female almost never happens. Had I known this, the make-up of the canine side of the household would have been different.

These are the reasons that the decision must be made about Lily and not about Shayna.

As is true with most difficult decisions, this one has moral implications. It is generally the moral import of a decision that makes it difficult. Choices that are about pure preference are seldom difficult. We go with what we like. Chocolate or vanilla? Cake or pie? There is no moral dimension to such a decision, as as human beings become practiced choosing our preferences, we make such choices without much thought.

But a decision that involves life and death, even that of an animal, has a moral dimension. It is not the same moral dimension as such a decision about a human being. That is entirely separate. Animals--even animals as sophisticated in social structure and the ability to make decisions as a dog is--are not moral souls. They do not make a conscious choice between good and evil, right and wrong. Rather they make decisions based more on instinct, and are hard-wired to act in favor of survival. And an animal is not conscious of its own death in the future. Dogs, like most other mammals live in the moment. (Dogs are aware of the difference between a living animal and a dead one, but they do not generalize it). That consciousness of impending death is what makes the human a moral being; the myth of the tree in the garden is a story about becoming conscious of mortality and thereby acquiring the need for morality.

Because she is a dog, Lily will not be aware of her impending death--should that be our decision--even when we go to put her down. We will make sure that her passing is unanticipated and painless. A walk in the meadow. A ride in the car. Going out to the garden at the Vet. That is all she will know until she knows no more.

But we are aware of it. And so the factors of our decision include important questions. When is it proper to destroy the life of an animal? Is it ever proper to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on uncertain treatments for a dog, when a limited amount of discretionary wealth inevitably means that humans in the family will have to choose to do without certain wants, and even needs?

What about Lily? Is she ever really relaxed? Does her anxiety overwhelm the good life for her? What does it do to her brain to go repeatedly into that out-of-control place?

And, of very great importance, what about the threat of pain and suffering to another human being that Lily poses? As much as we'd like to believe that we can keep Lily from encountering another person and harming him or her, there is always chance. Dogs escape. In the confusion of comings and goings, they see the open door and the beckoning world and out they go. Lily was on a leash and slipped her collar and ran toward the neighbor dogs that she bit; they were minding their own business on their own property. She could do the same to a human being should she go into that "red zone" and get loose.

In my moral calculus, a human being's welfare is more important than the life of a dog--even a dog I love. This is so because I am obligated to respect the rights of another person, and also because I can only imagine the pain and fear caused to another person who is attacked by a dog. A dog for whom I am responsible, and whom I cannot cure.

And of course, every attack by a dog on a person creates problems for neighbors, dogs and dog-owners everywhere. Whole breeds of dogs are collectively held responsible for the irresponsible behavior of a dog owner who willfully or inattentively lets a dog harm a person. Dog owners find their lives more and more restricted, no matter how responsible they are and how good their dogs are. It tears the social fabric, making for strife between neighbors, anger and fear, and inevitably guilt and shame for the responsible dog owner. Can I keep a dog that is clearly becoming more aggressive, one that I have been warned can never be trusted, and take the risk of creating such chaos?

These are the questions that must be answered. The nature of the questions themselves predict for me the inevitible conclusion. A little time must be taken in order that every human being in the household has the opportunity to ask these questions and prepare themselves for the consequences of the decision that must be made.

A little time. But not so much time that a decision is never made. Not so much that the decision is taken out of our hands by events. A mensch--a real human being--does not let events determine her morality. This idea has been a long time coming to me, even though it seems so simple. I was raised in chaos. I did not learn until late that what I do matters. It has an effect upon the world. In fact, the home(s) or origin for both our problem dogs probably mirrored mine in that important way. But I am a human being and I can learn to be a mensch, and I am obligated to make decisions based upon my ability to think about the future and to make conscious choices. And so, too, with the other humans in the house.

This is not an easy decision. But then, life was not meant to be easy. Life was meant to be life. And it is in the wholeness of life and in the nature of a human being to make such decisions.

About Lily: We Get a Prognosis

"You didn't create a monster," Dr. Nichol assured us as we left the small exam room at Albuquerque's Veterinary Emergency Center. "You were dealt this problem."


After six months of incidents involving aggressive behavior of our dog Lily toward our dog Shayna, and two other dogs in the neighborhood--each incident of which has caused injuries, and repeated trips to the vet for the other dogs--we were at the end of the line. We had consulted a trainer, purchased crates, used calming collars, instituted behavior changes, each of which had been cause for hope, and each of which appeared to achieve a certain measure of success--for a little while. After a quiet period that lasted 4 months, Lily has once attacked Shayna again, and this time it took a dry-firing of a 22 to get Lily to disengage. Poor Shayna had both staples and stitches, and she is becoming increasingly reactive to sudden movements and loud noises. Not a good situation for a dog that lives in a house with a family.


When Shayna was being treated at ABQ Vet Urgent Care Center, Dr. Fizpatrick told us that we ought to consult a behavior specialist, and she recommended Dr. Nichol, who is working on his board certification for Veterinary Behavioral Medicine. "This pattern is not going to get better," she said. "In fact, it is going to get worse each time. Exponentially. Unfortunately, he is not cheap," she continued, "But Jeff is well known throughout the region. He's among the best."


So last week, the Engineering Geek worked from home for a day in order to babysit the dogs, and he spent an hour on the phone with Dr. Nichol's research assistant. We both filled out long questionnaires and submitted them by e-mail. The questions not only required that we detail the agressive incidents, we were also asked why we had chosen this dog, what her daily habits are, where the dogs sleep, how all the dogs and the cats interact, and more. From our detailed answers Dr. Nichol was able to glean quite a bit about our dogs, even before he met us--and them.


On Wednesday afternoon, I loaded all three of our canines--Lily, Shayna, and Umbrae into the Honda, and drove over to the Veterinary Emergency Clinic. There, the Engineering Geek met us, and we went into a two-hour consult.


Dr. Nichol met us in the foyer, greeting the dogs first. A promising sign, I thought. He complimented us on the use of the Gentle Leader head-collar for all three dogs. When we got into the consult, he got straight to business. He had read our questionnaires, and he had many questions. Most of the consult was related to the questions, and near the end of the consult, he also listened to and responded to our questions.



According to the information we had been given about the consult, sometimes dogs are examined and given a battery of lab tests to screen for underlying health conditions before behavioral interventions and any medical treatment begins. When I asked about the blood work toward the end of the interview, the mood got very serious.



Before we get into that, I would like to discuss with you the prognosis for this dog, he told us. Basically, he said that we have a very complicated situation. We have two dogs with behavior problems--Shayna, who is very shy and reactive and may not be using normal signalling to other dogs, and Lily, who displays fear agression that has become physical in the past six months. Umbrae, on the other hand, is a well-adjusted dog. This is not surprising because he has been raised by us since he was a very young puppy. He is not part of the problem at all, and may even mitigate it to some extent.



Now, as if a switch has been thrown in Lily's brain, her threatening behavior towards other dogs, which was always present to some degree, has become outright attacks on other dogs and threats toward people. And because she and Shayna are in the same household, they have begun an transaction in which Lily threatens and then attacks--and her agitation ramps up very, very quickly. In response to three attacks with injuries, Shayna's reactivity has increased, but that also increases the chances of another attack. If we keep both dogs in the same household and do nothing the attacks will certainly worsen in ferocity and the resulting injury over time. And threats towards people will most likely become attacks on people, something that we cannot allow.

The question thus becomes what to do. "What are your goals?" asked Dr. Nichol.

Our first response was to say that we wanted peace in the house, that we want the fighting to stop. When pressed by Dr. Nichol, we expressed that we wished to rehabilitate Lily if possible, and to bring Shayna to a point where she is less reactive and more obedient towards others in the household. (She obeys me, but if I am around she ignores commands from others).


Given these goals, Dr.Nichol discussed with us two broad actions, the second of which has two possible directions.


1) Keep both dogs in the household, treat both with anti-anxiety medication, and institute a program of behavior modification for both of them. (Umbrae would continue with his therapy dog training, as he is not part of the problem anyway).


Prognosis: We may see limited success for a period of months or even years. But we can never trust Lily with strangers or with other dogs--even our own, and the likelihood of another, and more severe attack months or even a few years down the line is high. Bottom line is that we could spend thousands upon thousands of dollars, and completely change our behavior and we still will have to be very vigilant toward Lily for the rest of her life with us.

2) Remove one dog from the household, and treat the other dog.

Here, it was clear from the beginning of our discussion that the dog we were all considering removing is Lily. She is the one with aggression problems, and they pre-date Shayna's advent in the household. As I noticed that this was the subtext of the conversation, I interrupted the conversation. "If Lily is removed from the equation," I asked, "Do we have a better chance rehabilitating Shayna?"

"Definitely," came the reply. Shayna does not have problems with agression. Any aggressive looking response she gives Lily is defensive in nature. However, these attacks will eventually make the behavior more entrenched, so a decision should be reached before we end up with two aggressive dogs. Although treating Shayna's fear and anxiety, which was present prior to any interactions with Lily, will not be a walk in the park, a combined approach of medication and behavior modification has a good chance of succeeding.


We discussed two possibilities regarding removing Lily from the household: re-homing her and euthanasia. Separately, both the Engineering Geek and I had answered on the questionnaire that we had thought about euthanasia. Bruce also indicated that he had thought about re-homing. My response to the re-homing question was a little different. I had written that I had thought about it, but was reluctant to pass on a dangerous dog to others.

According to Dr. Nichol, rehoming isn't really an option for Lily at this point. First, he pointed out, she does have issues with aggression and they are persistent and entrenched. Even if we managed to find a new home for Lily, having been direct about the problems, and even sharing with the new owners the report for Dr. Nichol and getting them to sign a waiver of liability in blood, they could still come back and sue us later should Lily injure someone. Further, part of the genesis of Lily's problem is already that we are at least her 3rd home. She probably had at least one home prior to being a stray, she was then a resident of the shelter, and then she came to us. By the time she came to us, she had made and broken attachments in at least two other places. Each such transition is hard on most dogs, and particularly hard on one that has fear-aggressive issues. "Frankly," Dr. Nichol said, "Your home is the last stop for both of these dogs." He was talking about Lily and Shayna.

So at this point, we stand on the cusp of a weighty decision. Rehoming Lily is off the table. So is doing nothing and hoping the problem will go away. Shayna cannot take more of this. So the decision is whether we ought to begin treatment of both dogs with anti-anxiety medications, along with behavior modification supervised by a trainer, or whether we ought to euthanize Lily and treat Shayna. Certainly this issue has financial considerations attached. It is also a highly emotional decision that cannot be taken lightly, and that despite the emotional cost, must be decided rationally and thoughtfully, taking into consideration the impacts on every member of the family and upon the household as a whole.

And making such a decision is going to take some time. How do we deal with the dogs in the meantime? There are more questions than answers at the moment. We (the humans) of Ragamuffin House have to each make a choice of our own, and come to terms with it, and then we have to talk it out, reaching a choice as a family. We must take into consideration the needs of all the non-talking residents--Lily, Shayna, and Umbrae--who are involved in the dynamics that have gone so terribly wrong, and who are impacted by our decision. In the process, we will undoubtedly wrestle with the mistakes that we have made with these dogs, as well as the problems that we were dealt unknowingly, and the sense of failure that humans feel when no choice has a happy ending.

It is hard enough to consider and make the choice for euthanasia when a dog is old and ill. To contemplate putting a dog down before end of life decisions would ordinarily be made is harder.