Because it does. Jax has been watching. Jax has been thinking. Jax is done being subtle.
I have been doing this for a long time. Twelve years of political commentary. Twelve years of watching, sniffing, barking, and occasionally howling into a void that sometimes howls back. I have tried to be fair. I have tried to be measured. I have tried to present both sides of issues that have two sides, and to note clearly when an issue does not have two sides and one of the apparent sides is just a man in a suit saying things that are not true. I have been patient. I have been thorough. I have been, by the standards of political commentary dogs, quite restrained.
I have been doing this for a long time. Twelve years of political commentary. Twelve years of watching, sniffing, barking, and occasionally howling into a void that sometimes howls back. I have tried to be fair. I have tried to be measured. I have tried to present both sides of issues that have two sides, and to note clearly when an issue does not have two sides and one of the apparent sides is just a man in a suit saying things that are not true. I have been patient. I have been thorough. I have been, by the standards of political commentary dogs, quite restrained.
I am done being restrained. Vote blue. Vote blue like your life depends on it, because for a significant number of people in this country, it does. Vote blue like your neighbor's life depends on it. Vote blue like the life of someone you have never met but who deserves to live in a country that is not actively hostile to their existence depends on it. Vote blue in the primary. Vote blue in the general. Vote blue in the school board election and the water district race and the state legislature contest that everyone ignores until the state legislature does something catastrophic, which they will, and then everyone will wish they had paid attention to the state legislature.
I am done being restrained. Vote blue. Vote blue like your life depends on it, because for a significant number of people in this country, it does. Vote blue like your neighbor's life depends on it. Vote blue like the life of someone you have never met but who deserves to live in a country that is not actively hostile to their existence depends on it. Vote blue in the primary. Vote blue in the general. Vote blue in the school board election and the water district race and the state legislature contest that everyone ignores until the state legislature does something catastrophic, which they will, and then everyone will wish they had paid attention to the state legislature.
I am a dog. I cannot vote. This is the great injustice of my life. I have been paying attention for twelve years and I do not get a ballot. You do. Use it.
I am a dog. I cannot vote. This is the great injustice of my life. I have been paying attention for twelve years and I do not get a ballot. You do. Use it.
What I Have Watched
I have watched them gut the Department of Education. I have watched them ban books from school libraries — not dangerous books, not harmful books, books about history and families and the actual documented events of this country's past. I have watched them pass laws restricting what doctors can say to patients. I have watched them dismantle the agencies that keep the water clean and the air breathable and the food safe, and I want to be very clear that I drink from a bowl on the floor and I have opinions about water quality. I have watched them attack the institutions that make elections trustworthy and then claim the elections are not trustworthy. I have watched them do all of this in the open, with cameras present, and then express outrage when anyone describes what they are doing.
I have watched them gut the Department of Education. I have watched them ban books from school libraries — not dangerous books, not harmful books, books about history and families and the actual documented events of this country's past. I have watched them pass laws restricting what doctors can say to patients. I have watched them dismantle the agencies that keep the water clean and the air breathable and the food safe, and I want to be very clear that I drink from a bowl on the floor and I have opinions about water quality. I have watched them attack the institutions that make elections trustworthy and then claim the elections are not trustworthy. I have watched them do all of this in the open, with cameras present, and then express outrage when anyone describes what they are doing.
I have watched them go after the people who are most vulnerable. The people who need healthcare and cannot afford it. The people whose families do not look like the families the legislators belong to. The people who came here looking for safety and found a system designed to make them feel like criminals for the act of surviving. The people who are old and sick and dependent on programs that are being described, in budget documents, as waste. I have watched all of this. I have written about all of this. I have barked about all of this until my voice was hoarse, which is a thing that can happen to a dog who has been barking for twelve years.
I have watched them go after the people who are most vulnerable. The people who need healthcare and cannot afford it. The people whose families do not look like the families the legislators belong to. The people who came here looking for safety and found a system designed to make them feel like criminals for the act of surviving. The people who are old and sick and dependent on programs that are being described, in budget documents, as waste. I have watched all of this. I have written about all of this. I have barked about all of this until my voice was hoarse, which is a thing that can happen to a dog who has been barking for twelve years.
The Argument Against Voting Blue
I want to address the counter-arguments, because I am a fair journalist and I believe in engaging with opposing views. The counter-arguments are as follows: the Democrats are not perfect. The Democrats have made mistakes. The Democrats have sometimes been too cautious, too centrist, too slow, too unwilling to fight as hard as the situation requires. Some Democratic politicians have been corrupt. Some have been disappointing. Some have said the right things and done the wrong things, or said the right things and done nothing at all, which is its own category of failure.
I want to address the counter-arguments, because I am a fair journalist and I believe in engaging with opposing views. The counter-arguments are as follows: the Democrats are not perfect. The Democrats have made mistakes. The Democrats have sometimes been too cautious, too centrist, too slow, too unwilling to fight as hard as the situation requires. Some Democratic politicians have been corrupt. Some have been disappointing. Some have said the right things and done the wrong things, or said the right things and done nothing at all, which is its own category of failure.
These things are true. I acknowledge them. I have written about some of them. The Democratic Party is a large, imperfect, frequently frustrating coalition of people who disagree with each other about many things and agree on the basic proposition that the government should not actively harm the people it governs. That is the choice on the table. Not perfection versus imperfection. Not the party you wanted versus the party you got. The choice is between a party that is trying, imperfectly, to make things better, and a party that has made it very clear, in writing, in legislation, in public statements, that it intends to make things worse for a large number of people and better for a small number of people, and that it considers this a feature rather than a bug.
These things are true. I acknowledge them. I have written about some of them. The Democratic Party is a large, imperfect, frequently frustrating coalition of people who disagree with each other about many things and agree on the basic proposition that the government should not actively harm the people it governs. That is the choice on the table. Not perfection versus imperfection. Not the party you wanted versus the party you got. The choice is between a party that is trying, imperfectly, to make things better, and a party that has made it very clear, in writing, in legislation, in public statements, that it intends to make things worse for a large number of people and better for a small number of people, and that it considers this a feature rather than a bug.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. The perfect is also not on the ballot. The good is on the ballot. Vote for the good.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. The perfect is also not on the ballot. The good is on the ballot. Vote for the good.
The Stakes, As I Understand Them
I am a dog. I understand stakes in a very literal sense. I have buried many of them. But I also understand stakes in the political sense, which is to say I understand what is at risk and what is not, and I want to be very clear about what is at risk right now. What is at risk is the basic functioning of a democratic system. Not the idea of democracy — the idea is fine, the idea is great, the idea has been around for a long time and it is a good idea. What is at risk is the machinery. The courts. The elections. The agencies. The norms. The things that make the idea real, that translate the principle into practice, that ensure the government actually does what it is supposed to do instead of what the people currently in power want it to do.
I am a dog. I understand stakes in a very literal sense. I have buried many of them. But I also understand stakes in the political sense, which is to say I understand what is at risk and what is not, and I want to be very clear about what is at risk right now. What is at risk is the basic functioning of a democratic system. Not the idea of democracy — the idea is fine, the idea is great, the idea has been around for a long time and it is a good idea. What is at risk is the machinery. The courts. The elections. The agencies. The norms. The things that make the idea real, that translate the principle into practice, that ensure the government actually does what it is supposed to do instead of what the people currently in power want it to do.
I have watched the machinery get damaged. I have watched people who were supposed to protect it decide that protecting it was less important than protecting their own positions. I have watched the damage get normalized, which is the most dangerous thing that can happen to damage — when people stop seeing it as damage and start seeing it as just the way things are. The way things are is not the way things have to be. The way things are is the result of choices. Choices made by people who voted and people who did not vote and people who voted for the wrong reasons and people who voted for the right reasons and lost. The choices are still being made. The voting is still happening. The outcome is not fixed.
I have watched the machinery get damaged. I have watched people who were supposed to protect it decide that protecting it was less important than protecting their own positions. I have watched the damage get normalized, which is the most dangerous thing that can happen to damage — when people stop seeing it as damage and start seeing it as just the way things are. The way things are is not the way things have to be. The way things are is the result of choices. Choices made by people who voted and people who did not vote and people who voted for the wrong reasons and people who voted for the right reasons and lost. The choices are still being made. The voting is still happening. The outcome is not fixed.
Vote blue. Vote blue in every race on your ballot. Vote blue for the candidates you love and the candidates you merely tolerate and the candidates you have never heard of who are running for positions you did not know existed until you looked at your ballot. Vote blue because the alternative has shown you exactly what it is and exactly what it intends to do and you have no excuse for being surprised. Vote blue because a dog who has been paying attention for twelve years is telling you that this is the one. This is the moment. This is the election where the machinery either gets repaired or it does not, and the difference is you, and your neighbor, and the person down the street who is thinking about staying home because what does it matter anyway.
Vote blue. Vote blue in every race on your ballot. Vote blue for the candidates you love and the candidates you merely tolerate and the candidates you have never heard of who are running for positions you did not know existed until you looked at your ballot. Vote blue because the alternative has shown you exactly what it is and exactly what it intends to do and you have no excuse for being surprised. Vote blue because a dog who has been paying attention for twelve years is telling you that this is the one. This is the moment. This is the election where the machinery either gets repaired or it does not, and the difference is you, and your neighbor, and the person down the street who is thinking about staying home because what does it matter anyway.
It matters. I cannot vote. You can. I have been watching this for twelve years and I am asking you, as clearly as I know how to ask, to go to the polls and vote blue like your life depends on it. Because for a lot of people, it does. And because a dog who cannot vote is counting on you to vote for both of us.
It matters. I cannot vote. You can. I have been watching this for twelve years and I am asking you, as clearly as I know how to ask, to go to the polls and vote blue like your life depends on it. Because for a lot of people, it does. And because a dog who cannot vote is counting on you to vote for both of us.
They are cutting school funding, banning books, gutting the Department of Education, and calling it freedom. Jax has a different word for it. Several, actually.
I want to talk about education. Not because I went to school — I did not go to school, I am a dog, I learned everything I know from watching the news and smelling the mail — but because I have been paying attention, and what I have been paying attention to is a coordinated, systematic, enthusiastically funded effort to make sure that the next generation of Americans knows as little as possible about as many things as possible. They have a slogan for everything else. I have taken the liberty of providing one for this.
I want to talk about education. Not because I went to school — I did not go to school, I am a dog, I learned everything I know from watching the news and smelling the mail — but because I have been paying attention, and what I have been paying attention to is a coordinated, systematic, enthusiastically funded effort to make sure that the next generation of Americans knows as little as possible about as many things as possible. They have a slogan for everything else. I have taken the liberty of providing one for this.
The Republican Party — and I want to be fair here, I always want to be fair, fairness is a core journalistic value — has spent the last several years doing the following things: cutting federal education funding, attempting to eliminate the Department of Education entirely, banning books from school libraries, restricting what teachers are permitted to say in classrooms, rewriting history curricula to remove the parts that are uncomfortable, and defunding public universities that produce research they do not like. I have listed these things in a single sentence because they belong in a single sentence. They are not separate policies. They are one policy. The policy is: less knowing.
The Republican Party — and I want to be fair here, I always want to be fair, fairness is a core journalistic value — has spent the last several years doing the following things: cutting federal education funding, attempting to eliminate the Department of Education entirely, banning books from school libraries, restricting what teachers are permitted to say in classrooms, rewriting history curricula to remove the parts that are uncomfortable, and defunding public universities that produce research they do not like. I have listed these things in a single sentence because they belong in a single sentence. They are not separate policies. They are one policy. The policy is: less knowing.
Ignorance is curable. Stupid is forever. The difference is whether someone decided you were worth educating.
Ignorance is curable. Stupid is forever. The difference is whether someone decided you were worth educating.
The Books, Specifically
I want to spend a moment on the books, because the books are where this gets personal. I cannot read. I am a dog. But I understand the concept of a book. A book is a thing that contains information and ideas, and when you read it, you have more information and ideas than you had before. This is, by any reasonable measure, a good outcome. The people banning books from school libraries have apparently reached a different conclusion. Their conclusion is that certain information and certain ideas are so dangerous that children must be protected from them, and the protection takes the form of removal, and the removal is carried out by adults who, in many documented cases, have not read the books they are removing.
I want to spend a moment on the books, because the books are where this gets personal. I cannot read. I am a dog. But I understand the concept of a book. A book is a thing that contains information and ideas, and when you read it, you have more information and ideas than you had before. This is, by any reasonable measure, a good outcome. The people banning books from school libraries have apparently reached a different conclusion. Their conclusion is that certain information and certain ideas are so dangerous that children must be protected from them, and the protection takes the form of removal, and the removal is carried out by adults who, in many documented cases, have not read the books they are removing.
I want to be very clear about what is being banned. Not instructions for building weapons. Not material that is genuinely harmful. Books about history. Books about families that look different from the families the banners belong to. Books about what happened in this country and why it happened and who it happened to. Books that ask questions. The specific objection, in case after case, is not that the books are dangerous in the way that dangerous things are dangerous. The objection is that the books make certain people feel bad. The solution to feeling bad, apparently, is to ensure that no one learns the thing that caused the feeling. I have a different solution. It is called growing up.
I want to be very clear about what is being banned. Not instructions for building weapons. Not material that is genuinely harmful. Books about history. Books about families that look different from the families the banners belong to. Books about what happened in this country and why it happened and who it happened to. Books that ask questions. The specific objection, in case after case, is not that the books are dangerous in the way that dangerous things are dangerous. The objection is that the books make certain people feel bad. The solution to feeling bad, apparently, is to ensure that no one learns the thing that caused the feeling. I have a different solution. It is called growing up.
The Department of Education, Which They Would Like to Not Exist
The proposal to eliminate the Department of Education has been floating around Republican politics for decades, and it has recently acquired new momentum, which is to say that people who are now in positions of actual power are saying it out loud with apparent sincerity. The argument, such as it is, goes like this: education should be handled at the state and local level, the federal government has no business being involved, and therefore the entire apparatus should be dismantled. This argument sounds principled until you ask what happens to the children in states and localities that cannot or will not fund their schools adequately, at which point the argument tends to become quieter.
The proposal to eliminate the Department of Education has been floating around Republican politics for decades, and it has recently acquired new momentum, which is to say that people who are now in positions of actual power are saying it out loud with apparent sincerity. The argument, such as it is, goes like this: education should be handled at the state and local level, the federal government has no business being involved, and therefore the entire apparatus should be dismantled. This argument sounds principled until you ask what happens to the children in states and localities that cannot or will not fund their schools adequately, at which point the argument tends to become quieter.
I am a dog who grew up in a house with books and a television and people who explained things. I am aware that not every dog is that lucky. I am aware that the quality of the education a child receives in this country is determined largely by the zip code they were born into, and that this is a problem, and that the federal government's role in education exists precisely to address that problem. Eliminating the mechanism that addresses the problem does not solve the problem. It just makes the problem invisible to the people who were already not looking at it.
I am a dog who grew up in a house with books and a television and people who explained things. I am aware that not every dog is that lucky. I am aware that the quality of the education a child receives in this country is determined largely by the zip code they were born into, and that this is a problem, and that the federal government's role in education exists precisely to address that problem. Eliminating the mechanism that addresses the problem does not solve the problem. It just makes the problem invisible to the people who were already not looking at it.
What They Are Actually Afraid Of
Here is what I have concluded, after extensive analysis and a great deal of lying on the floor thinking about it: they are not afraid of bad education. They are afraid of good education. Specifically, they are afraid of what happens when people learn to think critically, evaluate evidence, recognize propaganda, understand history, and ask inconvenient questions of people in power. An educated population is a population that is harder to mislead. It is a population that reads the fine print. It is a population that notices when the thing they are being told does not match the thing that is actually happening. This is, from a certain political perspective, a serious problem.
Here is what I have concluded, after extensive analysis and a great deal of lying on the floor thinking about it: they are not afraid of bad education. They are afraid of good education. Specifically, they are afraid of what happens when people learn to think critically, evaluate evidence, recognize propaganda, understand history, and ask inconvenient questions of people in power. An educated population is a population that is harder to mislead. It is a population that reads the fine print. It is a population that notices when the thing they are being told does not match the thing that is actually happening. This is, from a certain political perspective, a serious problem.
A dog can smell fear. I have been smelling it for years now, coming off the people who want to control what gets taught and what gets read and what gets said in classrooms. It is not the fear of children being exposed to difficult ideas. It is the fear of children growing into adults who can identify a grift. It is the fear of a generation that will look back at what was done to their schools and their libraries and their teachers and ask, clearly and without confusion, who did this and why.
A dog can smell fear. I have been smelling it for years now, coming off the people who want to control what gets taught and what gets read and what gets said in classrooms. It is not the fear of children being exposed to difficult ideas. It is the fear of children growing into adults who can identify a grift. It is the fear of a generation that will look back at what was done to their schools and their libraries and their teachers and ask, clearly and without confusion, who did this and why.
Ignorance is curable. That is the thing they do not want you to know. It is curable with books and teachers and funding and the freedom to ask questions and receive honest answers. Stupid is forever — but stupid is not what most people are. Most people, given the tools, will use them. The entire project of making America ignorant again depends on removing the tools before anyone notices they are gone. Some of us have noticed. Some of us are barking about it. I intend to keep barking until the books are back on the shelves and the classrooms are funded and the people who thought ignorance was a governing strategy are themselves a chapter in a history book that no one is allowed to ban.
Ignorance is curable. That is the thing they do not want you to know. It is curable with books and teachers and funding and the freedom to ask questions and receive honest answers. Stupid is forever — but stupid is not what most people are. Most people, given the tools, will use them. The entire project of making America ignorant again depends on removing the tools before anyone notices they are gone. Some of us have noticed. Some of us are barking about it. I intend to keep barking until the books are back on the shelves and the classrooms are funded and the people who thought ignorance was a governing strategy are themselves a chapter in a history book that no one is allowed to ban.
The Tangerine Tyrant Is Bribing Voters. The President. Bribing Voters.
The sitting President of the United States is offering $5,000 to voters who support Republican candidates in other races. Not his race. He is already president. He is just buying elections for his friends. Jax has questions.
I want to start with a simple question. Not a rhetorical question. Not a question designed to make a point. A genuine, sincere, dog-sitting-on-the-floor-looking-up-at-you question: how is this legal? The sitting President of the United States is offering voters money. Five thousand dollars. To vote Republican in other races. Not his race. He is already the president. He won. He is in the White House right now. He is doing this to buy seats for his allies in other contests, using the full weight of the presidency as a fundraising prop. He said the words out loud, with his mouth, on purpose, in front of cameras, and then everyone just sort of moved on with their day. I did not move on with my day. I am still here. I am still asking.
I want to start with a simple question. Not a rhetorical question. Not a question designed to make a point. A genuine, sincere, dog-sitting-on-the-floor-looking-up-at-you question: how is this legal? The sitting President of the United States is offering voters money. Five thousand dollars. To vote Republican in other races. Not his race. He is already the president. He won. He is in the White House right now. He is doing this to buy seats for his allies in other contests, using the full weight of the presidency as a fundraising prop. He said the words out loud, with his mouth, on purpose, in front of cameras, and then everyone just sort of moved on with their day. I did not move on with my day. I am still here. I am still asking.
I am a dog. I do not have a law degree. I have a squeaky toy and strong opinions and a nose that can detect a lie from forty feet away, and that nose has been working overtime since this story broke. But even I know — even a dog who has never read a statute in his life knows — that the President of the United States using his office to funnel money to voters in exchange for supporting his party's candidates is a thing that is not supposed to happen. There are laws about this. There have been laws about this for a very long time. They exist specifically because the people who wrote them understood that if you let the most powerful man in the country buy elections for his friends, the elections stop meaning anything, and then the whole project falls apart.
I am a dog. I do not have a law degree. I have a squeaky toy and strong opinions and a nose that can detect a lie from forty feet away, and that nose has been working overtime since this story broke. But even I know — even a dog who has never read a statute in his life knows — that the President of the United States using his office to funnel money to voters in exchange for supporting his party's candidates is a thing that is not supposed to happen. There are laws about this. There have been laws about this for a very long time. They exist specifically because the people who wrote them understood that if you let the most powerful man in the country buy elections for his friends, the elections stop meaning anything, and then the whole project falls apart.
If I took a treat from a stranger and then did whatever they told me, my owner would call that a problem. She would say I had been compromised. She would not say I had been given a wonderful opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
If I took a treat from a stranger and then did whatever they told me, my owner would call that a problem. She would say I had been compromised. She would not say I had been given a wonderful opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
The Audacity, Specifically
What I find most remarkable — and I want to be precise here, because there are many remarkable things and I do not want to undersell any of them — is the openness of it. The brazenness. The this-is-the-president-of-the-united-states-doing-this-ness of it. He is not a candidate anymore. He is not trying to win something for himself. He already won. He is the most powerful person in the country, and he is using that position to offer cash payments to voters in exchange for supporting his party's candidates in races he is not even on the ballot for. This is not a campaign tactic. This is a sitting president attempting to purchase a legislature.
What I find most remarkable — and I want to be precise here, because there are many remarkable things and I do not want to undersell any of them — is the openness of it. The brazenness. The this-is-the-president-of-the-united-states-doing-this-ness of it. He is not a candidate anymore. He is not trying to win something for himself. He already won. He is the most powerful person in the country, and he is using that position to offer cash payments to voters in exchange for supporting his party's candidates in races he is not even on the ballot for. This is not a campaign tactic. This is a sitting president attempting to purchase a legislature.
The Tangerine Tyrant — and I use this name with the full weight of my journalistic authority — has spent his career testing the proposition that rules are for other people. He has tested it in business. He has tested it in politics. He has tested it in courtrooms, in depositions, in sworn testimony, and in the general vicinity of classified documents. Each time, the test has produced the same result: a period of loud outrage followed by a return to normal, during which the Tangerine Tyrant continues to do whatever he wants. He has learned the lesson that the system keeps teaching him. I cannot blame him for being a good student.
The Tangerine Tyrant — and I use this name with the full weight of my journalistic authority — has spent his career testing the proposition that rules are for other people. He has tested it in business. He has tested it in politics. He has tested it in courtrooms, in depositions, in sworn testimony, and in the general vicinity of classified documents. Each time, the test has produced the same result: a period of loud outrage followed by a return to normal, during which the Tangerine Tyrant continues to do whatever he wants. He has learned the lesson that the system keeps teaching him. I cannot blame him for being a good student.
What the Law Says, Theoretically
Federal law — specifically 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c), which I looked up, because I am a thorough journalist — makes it illegal to pay or offer to pay anyone to vote or register to vote. This is not an obscure provision. It is not buried in a footnote. It is a clear, direct prohibition that has been on the books for decades. The penalty is up to a year in prison and a fine. I mention this not because I expect it to be enforced, but because I think it is important to establish that the law exists, that it says what it says, and that what was offered appears to be exactly what the law says you cannot offer.
Federal law — specifically 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c), which I looked up, because I am a thorough journalist — makes it illegal to pay or offer to pay anyone to vote or register to vote. This is not an obscure provision. It is not buried in a footnote. It is a clear, direct prohibition that has been on the books for decades. The penalty is up to a year in prison and a fine. I mention this not because I expect it to be enforced, but because I think it is important to establish that the law exists, that it says what it says, and that what was offered appears to be exactly what the law says you cannot offer.
The lawyers, of course, have explanations. There are always lawyers with explanations. The explanation in this case involves the structure of the offer — it is a sweepstakes, technically, a lottery, a random drawing, not a direct payment for a vote, and therefore it occupies a legal gray area that is not quite the thing the statute prohibits. I have heard this explanation. I have considered it carefully. My considered response is: come on.
The lawyers, of course, have explanations. There are always lawyers with explanations. The explanation in this case involves the structure of the offer — it is a sweepstakes, technically, a lottery, a random drawing, not a direct payment for a vote, and therefore it occupies a legal gray area that is not quite the thing the statute prohibits. I have heard this explanation. I have considered it carefully. My considered response is: come on.
A Dog's Assessment
Here is what I know about incentives. If you want a dog to do something, you give the dog a treat. The dog does the thing. You give the treat. The dog has been influenced by the treat. It does not matter that the treat was not guaranteed in advance. It does not matter that the treat was presented as a reward rather than a payment. The dog understood the structure of the arrangement. The dog made a calculation. The treat was part of the calculation. This is not complicated. This is Tuesday at the dog park.
Here is what I know about incentives. If you want a dog to do something, you give the dog a treat. The dog does the thing. You give the treat. The dog has been influenced by the treat. It does not matter that the treat was not guaranteed in advance. It does not matter that the treat was presented as a reward rather than a payment. The dog understood the structure of the arrangement. The dog made a calculation. The treat was part of the calculation. This is not complicated. This is Tuesday at the dog park.
The voters being offered $5,000 are not dogs. They are human beings with full cognitive capacity and the right to make their own decisions. But the logic of the incentive is the same. You are being offered something valuable in exchange for a specific action. The person offering it wants the action. The action is a vote — a Republican vote in someone else's race, orchestrated by a president who has apparently decided that winning once was not enough and that the entire legislative branch should also be his. The valuable thing is money. I have described a bribe. I have described it using only words that mean what they say. I am open to a counter-argument. I have been open to a counter-argument for several days now. No counter-argument has arrived.
The voters being offered $5,000 are not dogs. They are human beings with full cognitive capacity and the right to make their own decisions. But the logic of the incentive is the same. You are being offered something valuable in exchange for a specific action. The person offering it wants the action. The action is a vote — a Republican vote in someone else's race, orchestrated by a president who has apparently decided that winning once was not enough and that the entire legislative branch should also be his. The valuable thing is money. I have described a bribe. I have described it using only words that mean what they say. I am open to a counter-argument. I have been open to a counter-argument for several days now. No counter-argument has arrived.
I do not know how this ends. I have been watching American politics long enough to know that the answer to 'how is this legal' is very often 'it isn't, but no one is going to do anything about it,' and that this answer is delivered with a shrug that gets heavier every year. I am a dog. I do not shrug. I bark. I am barking now. I will continue to bark until someone with a law degree and a functioning conscience decides that the rules mean something. I am not holding my breath. But I am keeping my ears up.
I do not know how this ends. I have been watching American politics long enough to know that the answer to 'how is this legal' is very often 'it isn't, but no one is going to do anything about it,' and that this answer is delivered with a shrug that gets heavier every year. I am a dog. I do not shrug. I bark. I am barking now. I will continue to bark until someone with a law degree and a functioning conscience decides that the rules mean something. I am not holding my breath. But I am keeping my ears up.
There are those who would rename things. Lakes. Streets. Airports. History itself. Jax is not interested in their opinions. It is Lake Ontario. It has always been Lake Ontario. This is not a debate.
I have heard the arguments. I have considered them with the patience and intellectual generosity for which I am widely known. I have weighed the evidence, examined the reasoning, and arrived at my conclusion with the calm certainty of a dog who has been right about everything for twelve years. The answer is no. It is Lake Ontario. It will always be Lake Ontario. Anyone who says otherwise is either confused, misinformed, or has been spending too much time on the internet, which is a place where confusion and misinformation go to breed.
I have heard the arguments. I have considered them with the patience and intellectual generosity for which I am widely known. I have weighed the evidence, examined the reasoning, and arrived at my conclusion with the calm certainty of a dog who has been right about everything for twelve years. The answer is no. It is Lake Ontario. It will always be Lake Ontario. Anyone who says otherwise is either confused, misinformed, or has been spending too much time on the internet, which is a place where confusion and misinformation go to breed.
Let me be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying the lake cannot change. Lakes change all the time. The water level goes up, the water level goes down, the algae situation fluctuates, the fish make their own decisions. I have no objection to any of this. The lake is a living system and I respect its autonomy. What I am saying is that the name is settled. The name was settled a long time ago by people who were standing next to the lake and needed to call it something, and they called it Ontario, and that was the correct decision, and it does not need to be revisited.
Let me be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying the lake cannot change. Lakes change all the time. The water level goes up, the water level goes down, the algae situation fluctuates, the fish make their own decisions. I have no objection to any of this. The lake is a living system and I respect its autonomy. What I am saying is that the name is settled. The name was settled a long time ago by people who were standing next to the lake and needed to call it something, and they called it Ontario, and that was the correct decision, and it does not need to be revisited.
You do not rename a lake. A lake is not a building. A lake is not a stadium that can be sold to a corporation and rechristened after a financial product. A lake is a lake. It has been there longer than you have. Show some respect.
You do not rename a lake. A lake is not a building. A lake is not a stadium that can be sold to a corporation and rechristened after a financial product. A lake is a lake. It has been there longer than you have. Show some respect.
On the Matter of Renaming Things
There is a particular kind of human who looks at something that has existed for centuries — a lake, a mountain, a street, a perfectly good Tuesday — and decides that what it really needs is a new name. Usually their name, or the name of someone they admire, or the name of a concept they have recently discovered and become very enthusiastic about. I have observed this behavior my entire life. I do not understand it. I find it exhausting.
There is a particular kind of human who looks at something that has existed for centuries — a lake, a mountain, a street, a perfectly good Tuesday — and decides that what it really needs is a new name. Usually their name, or the name of someone they admire, or the name of a concept they have recently discovered and become very enthusiastic about. I have observed this behavior my entire life. I do not understand it. I find it exhausting.
The lake does not need your name. The lake was here before you arrived and it will be here after you leave and it has never once asked for your input on what it should be called. It is Lake Ontario. The Haudenosaunee people called the region Ontario long before anyone drew a map of it. The name has roots. The name has history. The name has earned its place in the same way the lake has earned its place, which is by simply existing for an extremely long time without asking permission from anyone.
The lake does not need your name. The lake was here before you arrived and it will be here after you leave and it has never once asked for your input on what it should be called. It is Lake Ontario. The Haudenosaunee people called the region Ontario long before anyone drew a map of it. The name has roots. The name has history. The name has earned its place in the same way the lake has earned its place, which is by simply existing for an extremely long time without asking permission from anyone.
The Ravings of Lunatics
I want to address the people who disagree with me directly, because I think they deserve that courtesy. You are wrong. I say this not with malice but with the straightforward confidence of someone who has thought about this more carefully than you have. The lake is Ontario. Proclaiming otherwise is not a bold stance. It is not a fresh perspective. It is not speaking truth to power. It is the ravings of a lunatic, and I mean that in the most clinical and descriptive sense of the phrase.
I want to address the people who disagree with me directly, because I think they deserve that courtesy. You are wrong. I say this not with malice but with the straightforward confidence of someone who has thought about this more carefully than you have. The lake is Ontario. Proclaiming otherwise is not a bold stance. It is not a fresh perspective. It is not speaking truth to power. It is the ravings of a lunatic, and I mean that in the most clinical and descriptive sense of the phrase.
I have met lunatics. Some of them are very nice. Some of them have given me excellent treats. I hold no personal animosity toward lunatics as a category. But I will not pretend that their proclamations about lake nomenclature carry the same weight as the accumulated geographic consensus of several centuries. They do not. The lake has a name. The name is Ontario. This is the end of the discussion.
I have met lunatics. Some of them are very nice. Some of them have given me excellent treats. I hold no personal animosity toward lunatics as a category. But I will not pretend that their proclamations about lake nomenclature carry the same weight as the accumulated geographic consensus of several centuries. They do not. The lake has a name. The name is Ontario. This is the end of the discussion.
I have been to the lake. I have stood at its edge and looked out at the water and felt the particular peace that comes from being near something enormous and indifferent to human opinion. The lake does not care what you call it. The lake does not care about anything. It is a lake. But I care, on its behalf, because someone has to, and the dog is always the one who ends up doing the work that everyone else is too busy arguing to do.
I have been to the lake. I have stood at its edge and looked out at the water and felt the particular peace that comes from being near something enormous and indifferent to human opinion. The lake does not care what you call it. The lake does not care about anything. It is a lake. But I care, on its behalf, because someone has to, and the dog is always the one who ends up doing the work that everyone else is too busy arguing to do.
Lake Ontario. Write it down. Say it out loud. Let it settle into your understanding of the world as a fixed and permanent truth, the way the lake itself is fixed and permanent, the way the cold of the water in November is fixed and permanent, the way the smell of it on a clear morning is fixed and permanent. Some things do not change. Some things should not change. This is one of them. I will not be taking questions.
Lake Ontario. Write it down. Say it out loud. Let it settle into your understanding of the world as a fixed and permanent truth, the way the lake itself is fixed and permanent, the way the cold of the water in November is fixed and permanent, the way the smell of it on a clear morning is fixed and permanent. Some things do not change. Some things should not change. This is one of them. I will not be taking questions.
Every year, humans hold a contest to find the ugliest dog. Jax has thoughts about this. He also has a nominee for the human version. The President is available.
Every year, in Petaluma, California, humans gather to crown the World's Ugliest Dog. They put dogs on a stage. They judge them. They give the winner a trophy and a check and a moment of national media attention, and everyone agrees it is charming and wholesome and a celebration of unconventional beauty. I have watched this event for years. I have opinions.
Every year, in Petaluma, California, humans gather to crown the World's Ugliest Dog. They put dogs on a stage. They judge them. They give the winner a trophy and a check and a moment of national media attention, and everyone agrees it is charming and wholesome and a celebration of unconventional beauty. I have watched this event for years. I have opinions.
My first opinion is that the framing is wrong. The dogs entered in this contest are not ugly. They are distinguished. They have character. They have lived lives that have left marks on their faces, and those marks are not flaws — they are a record. A dog with a crooked jaw and one eye and fur that grows in three different directions has simply been alive for a long time and has the evidence to prove it. This is not ugliness. This is biography.
My first opinion is that the framing is wrong. The dogs entered in this contest are not ugly. They are distinguished. They have character. They have lived lives that have left marks on their faces, and those marks are not flaws — they are a record. A dog with a crooked jaw and one eye and fur that grows in three different directions has simply been alive for a long time and has the evidence to prove it. This is not ugliness. This is biography.
No dog has ever started a war, crashed an economy, or said something on television that made an entire nation put their head in their hands. And yet we are the ones being judged on our appearance.
No dog has ever started a war, crashed an economy, or said something on television that made an entire nation put their head in their hands. And yet we are the ones being judged on our appearance.
My second opinion is about fairness. If we are doing this — if we are holding public contests to evaluate physical appearance and find the most aesthetically challenging specimen — then I think it is only reasonable to apply the same standard across species. Consistency is a core value. I believe in it deeply. And I see no logical reason why the contest should be limited to dogs.
My second opinion is about fairness. If we are doing this — if we are holding public contests to evaluate physical appearance and find the most aesthetically challenging specimen — then I think it is only reasonable to apply the same standard across species. Consistency is a core value. I believe in it deeply. And I see no logical reason why the contest should be limited to dogs.
The Case for a Human Division
I am proposing a companion event: the World's Ugliest Human Contest. Same format. Same trophy. Same check. Same moment of national media attention. I think it would be very popular. I think the field of nominees would be enormous. I think the judging panel would have a great deal of material to work with.
I am proposing a companion event: the World's Ugliest Human Contest. Same format. Same trophy. Same check. Same moment of national media attention. I think it would be very popular. I think the field of nominees would be enormous. I think the judging panel would have a great deal of material to work with.
Now, I want to be clear that I am not talking about physical appearance. I am a dog. I do not care what you look like. I care how you smell and whether you are kind and whether you have ever given me a piece of your sandwich. Physical ugliness is not a meaningful category to me. What I am talking about is the other kind of ugly. The kind that shows up in behavior. The kind that is a choice.
Now, I want to be clear that I am not talking about physical appearance. I am a dog. I do not care what you look like. I care how you smell and whether you are kind and whether you have ever given me a piece of your sandwich. Physical ugliness is not a meaningful category to me. What I am talking about is the other kind of ugly. The kind that shows up in behavior. The kind that is a choice.
Behavioral ugliness. The ugliness of saying one thing and doing another. The ugliness of taking credit for things you did not do and avoiding blame for things you did. The ugliness of treating people as props in a story about yourself. The ugliness of being in a room and making everyone in it feel smaller. This is the ugliness I am interested in measuring, and I think we have some very strong contenders.
Behavioral ugliness. The ugliness of saying one thing and doing another. The ugliness of taking credit for things you did not do and avoiding blame for things you did. The ugliness of treating people as props in a story about yourself. The ugliness of being in a room and making everyone in it feel smaller. This is the ugliness I am interested in measuring, and I think we have some very strong contenders.
My Nominee
I will not name names. I am a political commentator, not a tabloid. But I will say that the current occupant of the White House has, in my professional assessment, demonstrated a consistent and impressive commitment to behavioral ugliness across a wide range of categories. The lying. The blaming. The hair. The particular way he stands at a podium as though the podium owes him money. The complete absence of any visible awareness that other people are also real. It is, from a purely analytical standpoint, a remarkable performance.
I will not name names. I am a political commentator, not a tabloid. But I will say that the current occupant of the White House has, in my professional assessment, demonstrated a consistent and impressive commitment to behavioral ugliness across a wide range of categories. The lying. The blaming. The hair. The particular way he stands at a podium as though the podium owes him money. The complete absence of any visible awareness that other people are also real. It is, from a purely analytical standpoint, a remarkable performance.
I am not saying he would win. The field is competitive. There are senators, executives, media personalities, and at least three people I have personally encountered at the dog park who would give him a serious run. But he would be a strong contender. I think he knows it. I think on some level this is why he keeps talking about how handsome he is. The dog doth protest too much.
I am not saying he would win. The field is competitive. There are senators, executives, media personalities, and at least three people I have personally encountered at the dog park who would give him a serious run. But he would be a strong contender. I think he knows it. I think on some level this is why he keeps talking about how handsome he is. The dog doth protest too much.
In the meantime, I will be watching the Petaluma contest with my usual mix of solidarity and mild offense. Those dogs are not ugly. They are survivors. They are interesting. They have more dignity in one crooked ear than most of the nominees for my proposed human division have in their entire careers. I stand with them. I always have. We are, after all, on the same team.
In the meantime, I will be watching the Petaluma contest with my usual mix of solidarity and mild offense. Those dogs are not ugly. They are survivors. They are interesting. They have more dignity in one crooked ear than most of the nominees for my proposed human division have in their entire careers. I stand with them. I always have. We are, after all, on the same team.
Jax has reviewed the historical record. He has sniffed the evidence. His conclusion: war is the least efficient solution to every problem it claims to solve, and dogs figured this out thousands of years ago.
I want to start with a simple observation: dogs do not go to war. We have disputes. We have territorial disagreements. We have the occasional confrontation at the dog park that requires a human to step in and say everyone's name in a firm voice. But we do not organize ourselves into armies, march into other dogs' yards, and spend years destroying everything while calling it strategy. We resolved that approach early in our evolutionary history and moved on.
I want to start with a simple observation: dogs do not go to war. We have disputes. We have territorial disagreements. We have the occasional confrontation at the dog park that requires a human to step in and say everyone's name in a firm voice. But we do not organize ourselves into armies, march into other dogs' yards, and spend years destroying everything while calling it strategy. We resolved that approach early in our evolutionary history and moved on.
Humans have not moved on. Humans have been at war, in some part of the world, for essentially the entirety of recorded history. They have developed increasingly sophisticated methods of doing it. They have written books about it, built museums about it, made movies about it, and then gone and done it again. I have watched this pattern from the couch for years and I have a few thoughts.
Humans have not moved on. Humans have been at war, in some part of the world, for essentially the entirety of recorded history. They have developed increasingly sophisticated methods of doing it. They have written books about it, built museums about it, made movies about it, and then gone and done it again. I have watched this pattern from the couch for years and I have a few thoughts.
The dog who barks loudest at the fence has usually never been outside the yard. This is also true of most people who are enthusiastic about war.
The dog who barks loudest at the fence has usually never been outside the yard. This is also true of most people who are enthusiastic about war.
Let me be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying that there are no situations in which force is necessary. I am a dog. I understand the concept of defending your territory. I understand that sometimes something comes at you and you have to respond. What I am questioning is the part that comes after — the part where the response becomes a project, where the project becomes an industry, where the industry becomes a reason to keep going long after anyone can remember what the original problem was.
Let me be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying that there are no situations in which force is necessary. I am a dog. I understand the concept of defending your territory. I understand that sometimes something comes at you and you have to respond. What I am questioning is the part that comes after — the part where the response becomes a project, where the project becomes an industry, where the industry becomes a reason to keep going long after anyone can remember what the original problem was.
The Cost Accounting Problem
Here is what I notice about war: nobody ever does the full accounting. They count the money spent on weapons. They do not count the money that could have been spent on other things. They count the enemies defeated. They do not count the people on both sides who are now gone. They count the territory gained. They do not count what was destroyed in the gaining of it, or what it will cost to rebuild, or whether the people who live there now feel liberated or occupied, which are two very different things that look identical from a distance.
Here is what I notice about war: nobody ever does the full accounting. They count the money spent on weapons. They do not count the money that could have been spent on other things. They count the enemies defeated. They do not count the people on both sides who are now gone. They count the territory gained. They do not count what was destroyed in the gaining of it, or what it will cost to rebuild, or whether the people who live there now feel liberated or occupied, which are two very different things that look identical from a distance.
I do this kind of accounting instinctively. When I am considering whether to chase the squirrel, I calculate the energy expenditure, the probability of success, the distance from the house, and the likelihood that my owner will be annoyed. I have a full cost-benefit model running in real time. The squirrel usually wins on paper. I sometimes chase it anyway, but at least I know I am making an irrational choice. Humans go to war and call it rational.
I do this kind of accounting instinctively. When I am considering whether to chase the squirrel, I calculate the energy expenditure, the probability of success, the distance from the house, and the likelihood that my owner will be annoyed. I have a full cost-benefit model running in real time. The squirrel usually wins on paper. I sometimes chase it anyway, but at least I know I am making an irrational choice. Humans go to war and call it rational.
What Dogs Would Do
If dogs ran foreign policy, here is what would happen: we would sniff each other. We would establish who was who. We would determine whether there was an actual threat or just a misunderstanding about whose yard this technically is. We would probably find that most conflicts are about resources — food, space, attention — and that most resource conflicts can be resolved by sharing, which is a concept humans teach their children and then immediately forget as adults.
If dogs ran foreign policy, here is what would happen: we would sniff each other. We would establish who was who. We would determine whether there was an actual threat or just a misunderstanding about whose yard this technically is. We would probably find that most conflicts are about resources — food, space, attention — and that most resource conflicts can be resolved by sharing, which is a concept humans teach their children and then immediately forget as adults.
I am not naive. I know there are bad actors. I know there are dogs — and people — who will take everything you give them and come back for more. I know that sometimes you have to hold the line. But holding the line is different from marching across someone else's yard and calling it liberation. One is defense. The other is a story you tell yourself so the accounting does not have to be done.
I am not naive. I know there are bad actors. I know there are dogs — and people — who will take everything you give them and come back for more. I know that sometimes you have to hold the line. But holding the line is different from marching across someone else's yard and calling it liberation. One is defense. The other is a story you tell yourself so the accounting does not have to be done.
War is stupid. I say this not as a pacifist — I have opinions about the squirrels that are not entirely peaceful — but as an analyst. The return on investment is almost never there. The problems it solves are almost always smaller than the problems it creates. And the people who pay the price are almost never the people who made the decision. This has been true for every war in human history. Humans know this. They keep doing it anyway. I find this baffling, and I am an animal that has eaten the same food every day for eleven years without complaint.
War is stupid. I say this not as a pacifist — I have opinions about the squirrels that are not entirely peaceful — but as an analyst. The return on investment is almost never there. The problems it solves are almost always smaller than the problems it creates. And the people who pay the price are almost never the people who made the decision. This has been true for every war in human history. Humans know this. They keep doing it anyway. I find this baffling, and I am an animal that has eaten the same food every day for eleven years without complaint.
Book Review: Moving Forward, Looking Back by Harold Eddie Asbury
Jax rarely endorses things. He has endorsed this book. Unconditionally. With both paws.
I do not give out praise easily. I am a dog with standards. I have sat through bad television, bad speeches, and bad weather, and I have not once pretended any of it was good. So when I tell you that Moving Forward, Looking Back by Harold Eddie Asbury is one of the finest books I have encountered in my years of cultural commentary, I need you to understand the weight of that statement.
I do not give out praise easily. I am a dog with standards. I have sat through bad television, bad speeches, and bad weather, and I have not once pretended any of it was good. So when I tell you that Moving Forward, Looking Back by Harold Eddie Asbury is one of the finest books I have encountered in my years of cultural commentary, I need you to understand the weight of that statement.
About the Book
Sci-Fi, 80's Nostalgia and Rock n Roll! Danny Walker just wanted to play Rock and Roll. He never wanted to be a hero, just a rock god. Danny takes a journey that leads from a tragedy in a small town in rural Ohio, to success as a musician, and on to becoming the last hope as the savior of the universe and existence itself. Buckle up for an adventure that will challenge your notion of the world around you, and dare you to examine the concept of infinity as you never have before.
Synopsis
Sci-Fi, 80's Nostalgia and Rock n Roll! Danny Walker just wanted to play Rock and Roll. He never wanted to be a hero, just a rock god. Danny takes a journey that leads from a tragedy in a small town in rural Ohio, to success as a musician, and on to becoming the last hope as the savior of the universe and existence itself. Buckle up for an adventure that will challenge your notion of the world around you, and dare you to examine the concept of infinity as you never have before.
This is a book that does what the best books do: it makes you feel less alone. It takes the full, complicated, sometimes painful arc of a human life and holds it up to the light without flinching and without sentimentality. Asbury writes with the kind of earned honesty that you cannot fake. You can feel on every page that these are real observations from a real person who has actually lived, actually struggled, actually come out the other side with something worth saying.
This is a book that does what the best books do: it makes you feel less alone. It takes the full, complicated, sometimes painful arc of a human life and holds it up to the light without flinching and without sentimentality. Asbury writes with the kind of earned honesty that you cannot fake. You can feel on every page that these are real observations from a real person who has actually lived, actually struggled, actually come out the other side with something worth saying.
Asbury writes the way a good dog listens — with full attention, no judgment, and complete presence.
Asbury writes the way a good dog listens — with full attention, no judgment, and complete presence.
The title tells you everything about the book's philosophy. Moving forward and looking back are not opposites. They are the same motion. You cannot know where you are going without understanding where you have been, and Asbury understands this in a way that most writers — and most people — spend their whole lives trying to figure out. He has figured it out. And then he wrote it down so the rest of us could benefit.
The title tells you everything about the book's philosophy. Moving forward and looking back are not opposites. They are the same motion. You cannot know where you are going without understanding where you have been, and Asbury understands this in a way that most writers — and most people — spend their whole lives trying to figure out. He has figured it out. And then he wrote it down so the rest of us could benefit.
What Makes It Exceptional
The prose is clean and direct. There is no showing off. Asbury is not trying to impress you with his vocabulary or his sentence structure. He is trying to reach you, and he does. The chapters move with a rhythm that feels natural, like a long walk where the conversation just keeps going and you realize an hour has passed and you did not notice because you were too engaged to check.
The prose is clean and direct. There is no showing off. Asbury is not trying to impress you with his vocabulary or his sentence structure. He is trying to reach you, and he does. The chapters move with a rhythm that feels natural, like a long walk where the conversation just keeps going and you realize an hour has passed and you did not notice because you were too engaged to check.
There is wisdom here that applies regardless of where you are in your own life. Whether you are at the beginning, the middle, or somewhere past the middle and trying to make sense of it all, this book meets you where you are. That is a rare quality. Most books are written for a specific reader at a specific moment. This one is written for everyone.
There is wisdom here that applies regardless of where you are in your own life. Whether you are at the beginning, the middle, or somewhere past the middle and trying to make sense of it all, this book meets you where you are. That is a rare quality. Most books are written for a specific reader at a specific moment. This one is written for everyone.
The Verdict
I am recommending this book without reservation. I am recommending it to everyone who reads this blog, which is a significant number of people with excellent taste in political commentary and, apparently, dogs. Buy it. Read it. Give it to someone you care about. It is the kind of book that stays with you, that you find yourself thinking about at odd moments — during walks, during naps, during the quiet parts of the day when your mind goes somewhere real.
I am recommending this book without reservation. I am recommending it to everyone who reads this blog, which is a significant number of people with excellent taste in political commentary and, apparently, dogs. Buy it. Read it. Give it to someone you care about. It is the kind of book that stays with you, that you find yourself thinking about at odd moments — during walks, during naps, during the quiet parts of the day when your mind goes somewhere real.
Moving Forward, Looking Back by Harold Eddie Asbury is available on Amazon. I have provided the link below. Use it. You will not regret it. I have never steered you wrong on anything except possibly the squirrel situation, and I maintain that I was correct about that too.
Moving Forward, Looking Back by Harold Eddie Asbury is available on Amazon. I have provided the link below. Use it. You will not regret it. I have never steered you wrong on anything except possibly the squirrel situation, and I maintain that I was correct about that too.
★★★★★ — Five out of five. Highest possible rating. Jax does not give these out lightly.
★★★★★ — Five out of five. Highest possible rating. Jax does not give these out lightly.
Purchase Moving Forward, Looking Back on Amazon
I'm in Facebook Jail Because They Don't Like My Politics
Jax the Dog has been silenced. Temporarily. By an algorithm. The irony of a dog being muzzled by a social media platform is not lost on him, and he has thoughts.
I am writing this from the outside. Facebook has put me in jail. Not a real jail — I have been in a real crate and this is worse, because at least in the crate I knew exactly what I did wrong. Here, I have been given no explanation, no trial, and no treat. Just a gray screen and a message that says my post violated community standards.
I am writing this from the outside. Facebook has put me in jail. Not a real jail — I have been in a real crate and this is worse, because at least in the crate I knew exactly what I did wrong. Here, I have been given no explanation, no trial, and no treat. Just a gray screen and a message that says my post violated community standards.
The post in question was my opinion on the current political situation. I will not repeat it here because apparently opinions are now contraband. What I will say is that I have been expressing opinions since 2014, that I am a dog, and that the bar for what constitutes a threat to community standards has apparently been set somewhere below 'medium-sized dog with a blog.'
The post in question was my opinion on the current political situation. I will not repeat it here because apparently opinions are now contraband. What I will say is that I have been expressing opinions since 2014, that I am a dog, and that the bar for what constitutes a threat to community standards has apparently been set somewhere below 'medium-sized dog with a blog.'
They will silence the dog. They will not silence the bark.
They will silence the dog. They will not silence the bark.
I want to be clear about what Facebook jail actually is, for those who have not experienced it. You can see everything. You can read every post. You can watch every video of someone's cousin's graduation and every ad for a product you mentioned once in a private conversation. You just cannot speak. You are a ghost at your own dinner table. You are the dog who has been told to go lie down and is lying down but is making very significant eye contact.
I want to be clear about what Facebook jail actually is, for those who have not experienced it. You can see everything. You can read every post. You can watch every video of someone's cousin's graduation and every ad for a product you mentioned once in a private conversation. You just cannot speak. You are a ghost at your own dinner table. You are the dog who has been told to go lie down and is lying down but is making very significant eye contact.
What I Actually Said
I said that politicians are crooks. I have said this before. I said it last week on this very blog and nobody put me in jail for it. I said it in a Facebook post with a link to that blog entry and suddenly I am a danger to the community. The community, apparently, cannot handle a dog's political analysis. The community needs to be protected from my takes.
I said that politicians are crooks. I have said this before. I said it last week on this very blog and nobody put me in jail for it. I said it in a Facebook post with a link to that blog entry and suddenly I am a danger to the community. The community, apparently, cannot handle a dog's political analysis. The community needs to be protected from my takes.
I have reviewed the community standards. They are long. They are vague. They contain the phrase 'coordinated inauthentic behavior,' which I find personally offensive because everything I do is authentic. I am a dog. I do not have the cognitive architecture for inauthenticity. When I am happy, I wag. When I am suspicious, I stare. When I have a political opinion, I post it on Facebook and apparently get sent to jail.
I have reviewed the community standards. They are long. They are vague. They contain the phrase 'coordinated inauthentic behavior,' which I find personally offensive because everything I do is authentic. I am a dog. I do not have the cognitive architecture for inauthenticity. When I am happy, I wag. When I am suspicious, I stare. When I have a political opinion, I post it on Facebook and apparently get sent to jail.
The Larger Point
The larger point is not about me. The larger point is about who gets to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not. Right now that decision is being made by an algorithm trained on data I have never seen, enforced by a process I cannot appeal, on a platform I do not own but have been using for twelve years to build an audience that can now be taken from me at any moment for reasons that will not be explained.
The larger point is not about me. The larger point is about who gets to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not. Right now that decision is being made by an algorithm trained on data I have never seen, enforced by a process I cannot appeal, on a platform I do not own but have been using for twelve years to build an audience that can now be taken from me at any moment for reasons that will not be explained.
I am not saying this is the end of democracy. I am a dog. I have perspective. What I am saying is that it is worth noticing. It is worth asking who benefits when the loudest, most inconvenient voices get quietly muzzled while the content that makes the platform money keeps flowing. It is worth asking why a dog's political blog is a threat to community standards but the comment section on any news article is apparently fine.
I am not saying this is the end of democracy. I am a dog. I have perspective. What I am saying is that it is worth noticing. It is worth asking who benefits when the loudest, most inconvenient voices get quietly muzzled while the content that makes the platform money keeps flowing. It is worth asking why a dog's political blog is a threat to community standards but the comment section on any news article is apparently fine.
I will be out of Facebook jail in three days. I will post again. They can put me back in. I have nowhere to be. I am a dog. My entire schedule is naps and vigilance and I can do both from here.
I will be out of Facebook jail in three days. I will post again. They can put me back in. I have nowhere to be. I am a dog. My entire schedule is naps and vigilance and I can do both from here.
A dog's unflinching take on the political class. They steal your treats, they ignore your barks, and they always look guilty when you catch them. Jax has the receipts.
I have been watching politicians for several years now. I watch them on the television. I watch them in the yard when my owner leaves the news on. I watch them the way I watch the mailman — with sustained, professional suspicion and a very clear sense that something is being taken from me.
I have been watching politicians for several years now. I watch them on the television. I watch them in the yard when my owner leaves the news on. I watch them the way I watch the mailman — with sustained, professional suspicion and a very clear sense that something is being taken from me.
My conclusion, after years of careful observation: they are all crooks. Not some of them. Not the ones from the other party. All of them. Every single one. I am not being cynical. I am being a dog, which means I am being honest, because dogs do not have the capacity for the kind of elaborate self-deception required to look at modern politics and say 'yes, this is fine.'
My conclusion, after years of careful observation: they are all crooks. Not some of them. Not the ones from the other party. All of them. Every single one. I am not being cynical. I am being a dog, which means I am being honest, because dogs do not have the capacity for the kind of elaborate self-deception required to look at modern politics and say 'yes, this is fine.'
A crook is someone who takes what isn't theirs and then explains, at length, why it actually was.
A crook is someone who takes what isn't theirs and then explains, at length, why it actually was.
I know what a crook looks like. I have been accused of stealing food off the counter on multiple occasions. The difference between me and a politician is that when I take the sandwich, I eat it immediately and do not hold a press conference about how the sandwich was actually a burden on the household and I was doing everyone a favor by removing it.
I know what a crook looks like. I have been accused of stealing food off the counter on multiple occasions. The difference between me and a politician is that when I take the sandwich, I eat it immediately and do not hold a press conference about how the sandwich was actually a burden on the household and I was doing everyone a favor by removing it.
The Evidence
They campaign on one thing and do another. They write laws they do not follow. They leave office significantly wealthier than they arrived, which is a trick I have never been able to pull off despite years of trying. They look you in the eye and say words that mean nothing, and then they look surprised when you stop believing the words.
They campaign on one thing and do another. They write laws they do not follow. They leave office significantly wealthier than they arrived, which is a trick I have never been able to pull off despite years of trying. They look you in the eye and say words that mean nothing, and then they look surprised when you stop believing the words.
I do not look surprised when I am caught. I look guilty, because I am guilty, because I took the sandwich. This is called accountability and it is apparently very rare in Washington.
I do not look surprised when I am caught. I look guilty, because I am guilty, because I took the sandwich. This is called accountability and it is apparently very rare in Washington.
What Should Be Done
I am not going to tell you who to vote for. I am a dog. I cannot vote. I have opinions about the squirrel situation that I believe are more pressing than most ballot measures, and I cannot even get those addressed.
I am not going to tell you who to vote for. I am a dog. I cannot vote. I have opinions about the squirrel situation that I believe are more pressing than most ballot measures, and I cannot even get those addressed.
What I will say is this: stop being surprised. The surprise is the part that gets you. They are crooks. They have always been crooks. The system was built by crooks, for crooks, with occasional interruptions by people who meant well and were eventually worn down or voted out. Knowing this does not fix it. But it does mean you can stop wasting energy on shock and start spending it on something useful. Like watching the yard. Like knowing where the squirrels are at all times. Vigilance. That is all I am asking for.
What I will say is this: stop being surprised. The surprise is the part that gets you. They are crooks. They have always been crooks. The system was built by crooks, for crooks, with occasional interruptions by people who meant well and were eventually worn down or voted out. Knowing this does not fix it. But it does mean you can stop wasting energy on shock and start spending it on something useful. Like watching the yard. Like knowing where the squirrels are at all times. Vigilance. That is all I am asking for.
The Economy Is Fine, Says Man Who Has Never Sniffed a Garbage Can
A dog's perspective on economic indicators that the experts keep missing. Spoiler: the treat aisle tells the whole story.
Every quarter, a man in a suit goes on television and tells you the economy is doing well. He cites GDP. He cites employment figures. He cites consumer confidence, which is a number they invented by asking people how they feel, which is not how I would design an economic indicator but I am a dog and apparently my methodology is not peer-reviewed.
Every quarter, a man in a suit goes on television and tells you the economy is doing well. He cites GDP. He cites employment figures. He cites consumer confidence, which is a number they invented by asking people how they feel, which is not how I would design an economic indicator but I am a dog and apparently my methodology is not peer-reviewed.
Here is what the GDP does not measure: the price of a standard 12-ounce bag of chicken-and-sweet-potato training treats. I have been tracking this. It is not fine.
Here is what the GDP does not measure: the price of a standard 12-ounce bag of chicken-and-sweet-potato training treats. I have been tracking this. It is not fine.
The treat aisle is the most honest economic indicator available. It cannot be seasonally adjusted. It cannot be revised upward three months later.
The treat aisle is the most honest economic indicator available. It cannot be seasonally adjusted. It cannot be revised upward three months later.
In 2020, my owner paid $4.99 for a bag of biscuits that lasted two weeks. The same bag — same brand, same flavor, same slightly-too-small size that I have always found insulting — now costs $8.49. That is a 70% increase. The Federal Reserve's target inflation rate is 2%. Someone is lying and it is not the biscuits.
In 2020, my owner paid $4.99 for a bag of biscuits that lasted two weeks. The same bag — same brand, same flavor, same slightly-too-small size that I have always found insulting — now costs $8.49. That is a 70% increase. The Federal Reserve's target inflation rate is 2%. Someone is lying and it is not the biscuits.
The Garbage Can Index
Economists have the Big Mac Index. I propose the Garbage Can Index. Walk past any residential block and take a deep olfactory survey of what people are throwing away. In good economic times, the cans smell like abundance — leftovers, excess, the comfortable waste of a society with enough. In bad times, the smell changes. Less meat. More packaging. More of the cheap stuff.
Economists have the Big Mac Index. I propose the Garbage Can Index. Walk past any residential block and take a deep olfactory survey of what people are throwing away. In good economic times, the cans smell like abundance — leftovers, excess, the comfortable waste of a society with enough. In bad times, the smell changes. Less meat. More packaging. More of the cheap stuff.
I have been conducting this survey for three years. I am not going to tell you what I found because my owner says I need to stop putting my nose in other people's garbage, but I will say: the data is concerning.
I have been conducting this survey for three years. I am not going to tell you what I found because my owner says I need to stop putting my nose in other people's garbage, but I will say: the data is concerning.
The economy is not fine. The economy is a number that powerful people use to describe their experience of the world. My experience of the world involves a treat budget that has been quietly cut twice in eighteen months. I notice these things. I remember them. I am keeping a list.
The economy is not fine. The economy is a number that powerful people use to describe their experience of the world. My experience of the world involves a treat budget that has been quietly cut twice in eighteen months. I notice these things. I remember them. I am keeping a list.
Why Does Everyone Clap at the Airport? An Investigation.
Jax investigates the bizarre human ritual of applauding a pilot for not crashing the plane. The bar, apparently, is on the ground.
I have been to the airport twice. Both times in a carrier, which is its own indignity and a topic for another column. But I have observed the humans. I have watched them. And I have questions.
I have been to the airport twice. Both times in a carrier, which is its own indignity and a topic for another column. But I have observed the humans. I have watched them. And I have questions.
When the plane lands — when it does the thing it was specifically designed and scheduled to do — a portion of the passengers applaud. They clap. For the landing. For the not-crashing. For the completion of the primary function of the vehicle they voluntarily boarded.
When the plane lands — when it does the thing it was specifically designed and scheduled to do — a portion of the passengers applaud. They clap. For the landing. For the not-crashing. For the completion of the primary function of the vehicle they voluntarily boarded.
Nobody claps when the elevator reaches the correct floor. Nobody gives a standing ovation to the bus for arriving at the stop.
Nobody claps when the elevator reaches the correct floor. Nobody gives a standing ovation to the bus for arriving at the stop.
I want to be clear: I respect pilots. Flying is complicated. I cannot do it. I cannot do most things that require opposable thumbs and I have made peace with that. But the clapping is not about respect for the pilot. The clapping is about the passengers' own relief. They are applauding themselves for surviving their own decision to get on a metal tube and hurl through the sky at 500 miles per hour.
I want to be clear: I respect pilots. Flying is complicated. I cannot do it. I cannot do most things that require opposable thumbs and I have made peace with that. But the clapping is not about respect for the pilot. The clapping is about the passengers' own relief. They are applauding themselves for surviving their own decision to get on a metal tube and hurl through the sky at 500 miles per hour.
A Comparative Analysis
When I do something I am supposed to do — sit, stay, come when called — I receive a treat and verbal praise. This is appropriate. I performed a trained behavior. The positive reinforcement is part of the system.
When I do something I am supposed to do — sit, stay, come when called — I receive a treat and verbal praise. This is appropriate. I performed a trained behavior. The positive reinforcement is part of the system.
The pilot is a trained professional performing a trained behavior. The treat, in this case, is a salary and benefits package. The applause is extra. It is unsolicited. It is, I would argue, slightly condescending — as if the passengers are surprised it worked out.
The pilot is a trained professional performing a trained behavior. The treat, in this case, is a salary and benefits package. The applause is extra. It is unsolicited. It is, I would argue, slightly condescending — as if the passengers are surprised it worked out.
Fly more confidently. Tip your flight attendants. Stop clapping. The pilot cannot hear you and the people in 14C are trying to sleep.
Fly more confidently. Tip your flight attendants. Stop clapping. The pilot cannot hear you and the people in 14C are trying to sleep.
Every day is the same when you're a dog. Humans invented suffering and then named it after the moon. Jax has thoughts.
I wake up the same way every day. The sun comes through the window at roughly the same angle. My owner's alarm goes off. I stretch. I consider the day. The day, as far as I am concerned, is a day. It has no name. It has no reputation. It simply is.
I wake up the same way every day. The sun comes through the window at roughly the same angle. My owner's alarm goes off. I stretch. I consider the day. The day, as far as I am concerned, is a day. It has no name. It has no reputation. It simply is.
Humans have decided that one of these days is worse than the others. They have named it Monday. They have built an entire cultural infrastructure around dreading it — the memes, the coffee mugs, the resigned sighs on Sunday evening that I have learned to interpret as 'tomorrow is the bad day again.'
Humans have decided that one of these days is worse than the others. They have named it Monday. They have built an entire cultural infrastructure around dreading it — the memes, the coffee mugs, the resigned sighs on Sunday evening that I have learned to interpret as 'tomorrow is the bad day again.'
Monday is not bad. Monday is Tuesday with better PR for Tuesday.
Monday is not bad. Monday is Tuesday with better PR for Tuesday.
The etymology, for those keeping score: Monday comes from 'Moon's Day.' Humans named a day after the moon and then decided it was the worst one. The moon has done nothing wrong. The moon controls the tides. The moon is, by any reasonable measure, one of the more reliable fixtures in the sky. It does not deserve this association.
The etymology, for those keeping score: Monday comes from 'Moon's Day.' Humans named a day after the moon and then decided it was the worst one. The moon has done nothing wrong. The moon controls the tides. The moon is, by any reasonable measure, one of the more reliable fixtures in the sky. It does not deserve this association.
I propose a reframe. Monday is the first day of a new attempt. It is a clean slate. It is the morning after the weekend, which means the weekend just happened and you should still feel good about that. The walk is the same length on Monday as it is on Saturday. The treat tastes the same. The couch has not changed.
I propose a reframe. Monday is the first day of a new attempt. It is a clean slate. It is the morning after the weekend, which means the weekend just happened and you should still feel good about that. The walk is the same length on Monday as it is on Saturday. The treat tastes the same. The couch has not changed.
The suffering is optional. The name is arbitrary. Wake up. Stretch. Eat breakfast. It is just a day. I promise.
The suffering is optional. The name is arbitrary. Wake up. Stretch. Eat breakfast. It is just a day. I promise.
Diplomatic relations have broken down. Jax outlines his position, his demands, and his willingness to negotiate — conditionally.
To the squirrels currently occupying the oak tree at the northeast corner of the yard:
To the squirrels currently occupying the oak tree at the northeast corner of the yard:
I am writing this in good faith. I want you to know that. I have consulted no one. I have no legal representation. I am a dog acting alone, in the interest of peace, because the current situation is unsustainable and I think we both know it.
I am writing this in good faith. I want you to know that. I have consulted no one. I have no legal representation. I am a dog acting alone, in the interest of peace, because the current situation is unsustainable and I think we both know it.
You have been running along the fence line at exactly the speed required to make pursuit feel possible but success feel impossible. This is psychological warfare and I will not pretend otherwise.
You have been running along the fence line at exactly the speed required to make pursuit feel possible but success feel impossible. This is psychological warfare and I will not pretend otherwise.
Let me be direct about the grievances. First: the acorns. You are burying them in my yard. My yard. The yard where I have established clear territorial sovereignty through years of consistent perimeter marking. The acorns are not welcome. They are a provocation.
Let me be direct about the grievances. First: the acorns. You are burying them in my yard. My yard. The yard where I have established clear territorial sovereignty through years of consistent perimeter marking. The acorns are not welcome. They are a provocation.
Second: the chattering. You know what you are doing when you chatter from the fence while I am trying to nap on the porch. You know exactly what you are doing. I am asking you to stop.
Second: the chattering. You know what you are doing when you chatter from the fence while I am trying to nap on the porch. You know exactly what you are doing. I am asking you to stop.
My Proposed Terms
I am prepared to offer the following: a 36-inch buffer zone along the fence line, during which I will not give chase. In exchange, you will cease the acorn burial operations and limit fence-running to the hours of 2pm to 4pm, when I am typically napping and will not notice.
I am prepared to offer the following: a 36-inch buffer zone along the fence line, during which I will not give chase. In exchange, you will cease the acorn burial operations and limit fence-running to the hours of 2pm to 4pm, when I am typically napping and will not notice.
I believe this is fair. I believe this is more than fair. I am offering you something I have never offered any squirrel: the benefit of the doubt.
I believe this is fair. I believe this is more than fair. I am offering you something I have never offered any squirrel: the benefit of the doubt.
The ball is in your court. Or rather, the acorn is in your tree. I await your response. I will be on the porch.
The ball is in your court. Or rather, the acorn is in your tree. I await your response. I will be on the porch.
The same bag of biscuits that cost $4.99 in 2020 now costs $8.49. Jax has receipts. Literally. He ate one.
I want to talk about something that affects every dog in this country and approximately zero economists. I want to talk about treat inflation. I want to talk about it loudly, and at length, until someone with a PhD in something useful takes it seriously.
I want to talk about something that affects every dog in this country and approximately zero economists. I want to talk about treat inflation. I want to talk about it loudly, and at length, until someone with a PhD in something useful takes it seriously.
The numbers are not ambiguous. I have been conducting price surveillance at my local pet supply store for three years. The methodology is simple: I accompany my owner, I observe the treat aisle, and I remember everything because I am a dog and the treat aisle is the most important aisle in any building.
The numbers are not ambiguous. I have been conducting price surveillance at my local pet supply store for three years. The methodology is simple: I accompany my owner, I observe the treat aisle, and I remember everything because I am a dog and the treat aisle is the most important aisle in any building.
Shrinkflation has hit the treat sector hard. The bags are the same size. The treats inside are smaller. I have measured this with my mouth.
Shrinkflation has hit the treat sector hard. The bags are the same size. The treats inside are smaller. I have measured this with my mouth.
In 2020: $4.99 for a 12-ounce bag of chicken training treats. In 2022: $6.29. In 2024: $7.99. Today: $8.49. That is a 70% price increase over four years. The Federal Reserve's inflation target is 2% annually. Over four years, that would be roughly 8%. We are at 70. Someone needs to explain the gap.
In 2020: $4.99 for a 12-ounce bag of chicken training treats. In 2022: $6.29. In 2024: $7.99. Today: $8.49. That is a 70% price increase over four years. The Federal Reserve's inflation target is 2% annually. Over four years, that would be roughly 8%. We are at 70. Someone needs to explain the gap.
I ate one of the receipts. It tasted like nothing, which is appropriate, because the receipt represents money that no longer exists in my treat budget. My owner says I need to stop eating paper. My owner also needs to stop pretending the treat situation is normal. We are both adjusting.
I ate one of the receipts. It tasted like nothing, which is appropriate, because the receipt represents money that no longer exists in my treat budget. My owner says I need to stop eating paper. My owner also needs to stop pretending the treat situation is normal. We are both adjusting.
Humans spend 31 hours a month in unproductive meetings. Dogs communicate everything they need to in under three seconds. Coincidence?
According to a study I heard my owner complain about, the average professional spends 31 hours per month in meetings that accomplish nothing. Thirty-one hours. That is more than a full work week. That is time that could be spent on literally anything else, including staring out a window, which I do for several hours a day and find enormously productive.
According to a study I heard my owner complain about, the average professional spends 31 hours per month in meetings that accomplish nothing. Thirty-one hours. That is more than a full work week. That is time that could be spent on literally anything else, including staring out a window, which I do for several hours a day and find enormously productive.
I want to offer a countermodel. When I need to communicate something, I communicate it. The communication takes between one and four seconds. It is unambiguous. It requires no agenda, no slide deck, no 'let's circle back on that,' and no follow-up email summarizing what was just said out loud to everyone present.
I want to offer a countermodel. When I need to communicate something, I communicate it. The communication takes between one and four seconds. It is unambiguous. It requires no agenda, no slide deck, no 'let's circle back on that,' and no follow-up email summarizing what was just said out loud to everyone present.
A bark means: I have noticed something. A whine means: I need something. A tail wag means: I am glad you exist. None of these require a Zoom link.
A bark means: I have noticed something. A whine means: I need something. A tail wag means: I am glad you exist. None of these require a Zoom link.
The problem with human meetings is not that humans need to communicate. Communication is good. The problem is that meetings have become a performance of communication — a ritual that signals effort without producing it. You sit in the room. You nod. You say 'great point.' You leave. Nothing has changed except the time.
The problem with human meetings is not that humans need to communicate. Communication is good. The problem is that meetings have become a performance of communication — a ritual that signals effort without producing it. You sit in the room. You nod. You say 'great point.' You leave. Nothing has changed except the time.
I am not saying replace all meetings with barking. I am saying: before you schedule a 60-minute recurring sync, ask yourself if a single clear message would do the same job. It usually would. I know this because I have never once needed a follow-up meeting to clarify a bark.
I am not saying replace all meetings with barking. I am saying: before you schedule a 60-minute recurring sync, ask yourself if a single clear message would do the same job. It usually would. I know this because I have never once needed a follow-up meeting to clarify a bark.
Refusing to be productive in a system designed to extract your labor is not laziness. It is resistance. Also, the couch is very comfortable.
Every afternoon, between approximately 1pm and 3pm, I lie down on the couch and I sleep. I do not apologize for this. I do not explain it. I do not preface it with 'I just need to recharge' or 'I'm going to do a quick reset.' I simply lie down, close my eyes, and exit the economy for two hours.
Every afternoon, between approximately 1pm and 3pm, I lie down on the couch and I sleep. I do not apologize for this. I do not explain it. I do not preface it with 'I just need to recharge' or 'I'm going to do a quick reset.' I simply lie down, close my eyes, and exit the economy for two hours.
This is, I have come to believe, a political act.
This is, I have come to believe, a political act.
The system wants you tired but functional. It does not want you rested. A rested person asks questions. A rested person notices things. A rested person is harder to manage.
The system wants you tired but functional. It does not want you rested. A rested person asks questions. A rested person notices things. A rested person is harder to manage.
The cultural war on napping is well-documented if you know where to look. 'Hustle culture' tells you that rest is waste. Productivity culture tells you that every hour must be optimized. The entire infrastructure of modern work is designed to make you feel guilty for stopping. The guilt is the product. The exhaustion is the point.
The cultural war on napping is well-documented if you know where to look. 'Hustle culture' tells you that rest is waste. Productivity culture tells you that every hour must be optimized. The entire infrastructure of modern work is designed to make you feel guilty for stopping. The guilt is the product. The exhaustion is the point.
The Nap as Resistance
I am not lazy. I am strategic. I nap so that I can be fully present for the things that matter: the walk, the meal, the moment my owner comes home and I can demonstrate, with my entire body, that their existence is the best thing that has happened to me all day. You cannot do that well if you are running on empty.
I am not lazy. I am strategic. I nap so that I can be fully present for the things that matter: the walk, the meal, the moment my owner comes home and I can demonstrate, with my entire body, that their existence is the best thing that has happened to me all day. You cannot do that well if you are running on empty.
The afternoon nap is not a retreat from life. It is a preparation for it. It is a refusal to let the relentless forward motion of a productivity-obsessed culture consume every available hour. It is, in the most literal sense, lying down in protest.
The afternoon nap is not a retreat from life. It is a preparation for it. It is a refusal to let the relentless forward motion of a productivity-obsessed culture consume every available hour. It is, in the most literal sense, lying down in protest.
I will be on the couch if you need me. You probably don't need me. That is also fine.
I will be on the couch if you need me. You probably don't need me. That is also fine.
Two humans stood at podiums for ninety minutes and said nothing. Jax watched every second. His findings are not encouraging.
I watched the debate. All of it. Ninety minutes, start to finish, from my position on the couch with a clear sightline to the television and a growing sense that something had gone very wrong with the species I have chosen to live among.
I watched the debate. All of it. Ninety minutes, start to finish, from my position on the couch with a clear sightline to the television and a growing sense that something had gone very wrong with the species I have chosen to live among.
I want to be fair. I am always fair. I am a dog and fairness is one of the things I take seriously, along with the perimeter of the yard and the question of whether the mail carrier is a threat. I watched both candidates with equal attention. I gave both candidates the same sustained, unblinking gaze I give to anything I am trying to understand. By the end, I understood less than when I started.
I want to be fair. I am always fair. I am a dog and fairness is one of the things I take seriously, along with the perimeter of the yard and the question of whether the mail carrier is a threat. I watched both candidates with equal attention. I gave both candidates the same sustained, unblinking gaze I give to anything I am trying to understand. By the end, I understood less than when I started.
They were asked about the economy. They talked about each other. They were asked about foreign policy. They talked about each other. They were asked about the future. They talked about the past. Specifically, each other's past.
They were asked about the economy. They talked about each other. They were asked about foreign policy. They talked about each other. They were asked about the future. They talked about the past. Specifically, each other's past.
The format, for those who did not watch: two people stand at podiums. A moderator asks a question. The person who was asked the question does not answer it. Instead, they say something about the other person. The other person then responds, not to the question, but to what was just said about them. This continues for ninety minutes. At the end, a winner is declared by people who were already going to vote for that person.
The format, for those who did not watch: two people stand at podiums. A moderator asks a question. The person who was asked the question does not answer it. Instead, they say something about the other person. The other person then responds, not to the question, but to what was just said about them. This continues for ninety minutes. At the end, a winner is declared by people who were already going to vote for that person.
What I Learned
I learned that both candidates believe the country is in serious trouble. I learned that both candidates believe the other candidate is the reason for this. I learned that the word 'disaster' can be used to describe almost any policy if you say it with enough conviction. I learned that ninety minutes is a very long time to watch two humans not answer questions.
I learned that both candidates believe the country is in serious trouble. I learned that both candidates believe the other candidate is the reason for this. I learned that the word 'disaster' can be used to describe almost any policy if you say it with enough conviction. I learned that ninety minutes is a very long time to watch two humans not answer questions.
I also learned that I am apparently the only one in this household who watches debates without yelling at the television. My owner yelled several times. I did not yell. I observed. I took mental notes. I remained calm, because I am a professional, and also because I do not have the vocal architecture for the specific kind of yelling that debates seem to require.
I also learned that I am apparently the only one in this household who watches debates without yelling at the television. My owner yelled several times. I did not yell. I observed. I took mental notes. I remained calm, because I am a professional, and also because I do not have the vocal architecture for the specific kind of yelling that debates seem to require.
My Recommendation
Watch the debate. You should watch it. Not because it will tell you who to vote for — it will not — but because it will tell you something important about the state of public discourse, which is that the state of public discourse is not good. Knowing this is useful. Being surprised by it is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Watch the debate. You should watch it. Not because it will tell you who to vote for — it will not — but because it will tell you something important about the state of public discourse, which is that the state of public discourse is not good. Knowing this is useful. Being surprised by it is a luxury we can no longer afford.
I will be watching the next one. I will be on the couch. I will have snacks, if the treat budget allows. I will remain calm. Someone has to.
I will be watching the next one. I will be on the couch. I will have snacks, if the treat budget allows. I will remain calm. Someone has to.
Two world leaders shook hands for three seconds and the cameras went wild. Jax, who greets strangers correctly, has notes.
I want to talk about the handshake. Not any specific handshake — though there have been several recently that warranted analysis — but the handshake as a diplomatic instrument, as a signal, as a piece of political theater that the entire world apparently watches and interprets and argues about for days afterward.
I want to talk about the handshake. Not any specific handshake — though there have been several recently that warranted analysis — but the handshake as a diplomatic instrument, as a signal, as a piece of political theater that the entire world apparently watches and interprets and argues about for days afterward.
I greet strangers correctly. I approach at an angle, not head-on. I keep my body loose. I allow the other party to set the pace of the interaction. I gather information through proximity before committing to a position. This is how you do it. This is the protocol. It has been refined over thousands of years of social evolution and it works.
I greet strangers correctly. I approach at an angle, not head-on. I keep my body loose. I allow the other party to set the pace of the interaction. I gather information through proximity before committing to a position. This is how you do it. This is the protocol. It has been refined over thousands of years of social evolution and it works.
A firm handshake is supposed to signal confidence. What it actually signals is that someone read a book about handshakes in 1987 and has been performing it ever since.
A firm handshake is supposed to signal confidence. What it actually signals is that someone read a book about handshakes in 1987 and has been performing it ever since.
The political handshake is different from a normal handshake. It is performed for cameras. It is held for exactly as long as the photographers need. It is accompanied by eye contact that is either too intense or not intense enough, and the analysis afterward focuses almost entirely on who pulled whom toward them and whether that means something about the balance of power.
The political handshake is different from a normal handshake. It is performed for cameras. It is held for exactly as long as the photographers need. It is accompanied by eye contact that is either too intense or not intense enough, and the analysis afterward focuses almost entirely on who pulled whom toward them and whether that means something about the balance of power.
It does not mean anything about the balance of power. It means one of them has a stronger grip. That is all. Grip strength is not a foreign policy.
It does not mean anything about the balance of power. It means one of them has a stronger grip. That is all. Grip strength is not a foreign policy.
What Should Replace It
I am not proposing that world leaders sniff each other. I understand that is not on the table. What I am proposing is that we stop treating three seconds of hand contact as meaningful diplomatic signal. The handshake is theater. The real communication happens in the room afterward, in the language of interests and leverage and what each side needs to bring home. That is where the actual greeting happens. The rest is for the cameras.
I am not proposing that world leaders sniff each other. I understand that is not on the table. What I am proposing is that we stop treating three seconds of hand contact as meaningful diplomatic signal. The handshake is theater. The real communication happens in the room afterward, in the language of interests and leverage and what each side needs to bring home. That is where the actual greeting happens. The rest is for the cameras.
I will continue to greet strangers correctly. I cannot speak for the heads of state.
I will continue to greet strangers correctly. I cannot speak for the heads of state.
A detailed intelligence briefing on the orange tabby at 14 Maple. The evidence is circumstantial. The conclusion is not.
I have been monitoring the situation across the street for approximately fourteen months. I want to be clear that I am not acting on instinct here. Instinct would have me barking immediately and without nuance. What I am doing is analysis. Careful, sustained, evidence-based analysis of a subject who has given me every reason for concern and zero reasons for reassurance.
I have been monitoring the situation across the street for approximately fourteen months. I want to be clear that I am not acting on instinct here. Instinct would have me barking immediately and without nuance. What I am doing is analysis. Careful, sustained, evidence-based analysis of a subject who has given me every reason for concern and zero reasons for reassurance.
The cat's name, I am told, is Biscuit. I find this name suspicious. It is a disarming name. It is a name designed to make you lower your guard. Nobody names a threat 'Biscuit.' That is exactly what someone who is a threat would do.
The cat's name, I am told, is Biscuit. I find this name suspicious. It is a disarming name. It is a name designed to make you lower your guard. Nobody names a threat 'Biscuit.' That is exactly what someone who is a threat would do.
Biscuit sits in the window and watches. Not the way I watch — openly, with declared intent. Biscuit watches sideways. Biscuit watches while pretending not to watch. This is called surveillance.
Biscuit sits in the window and watches. Not the way I watch — openly, with declared intent. Biscuit watches sideways. Biscuit watches while pretending not to watch. This is called surveillance.
The evidence file is substantial. Item one: Biscuit has never once acknowledged my presence with a direct look. Every time I pass, Biscuit looks away. This is not indifference. Indifference is a neutral state. This is a performance of indifference, which is a very different thing and considerably more alarming.
The evidence file is substantial. Item one: Biscuit has never once acknowledged my presence with a direct look. Every time I pass, Biscuit looks away. This is not indifference. Indifference is a neutral state. This is a performance of indifference, which is a very different thing and considerably more alarming.
Item two: Biscuit was seen on my side of the street on the morning of March 14th. There is no legitimate reason for Biscuit to be on my side of the street. The street is a clear boundary. Biscuit knows this. Biscuit crossed it anyway. I barked. My owner said 'it's just a cat.' My owner does not have the full picture.
Item two: Biscuit was seen on my side of the street on the morning of March 14th. There is no legitimate reason for Biscuit to be on my side of the street. The street is a clear boundary. Biscuit knows this. Biscuit crossed it anyway. I barked. My owner said 'it's just a cat.' My owner does not have the full picture.
My Assessment
I am not saying Biscuit is dangerous in the conventional sense. I am saying Biscuit is operating according to an agenda I do not fully understand, and in my experience, things operating according to agendas you do not understand are worth watching. I am watching. I will continue to watch.
I am not saying Biscuit is dangerous in the conventional sense. I am saying Biscuit is operating according to an agenda I do not fully understand, and in my experience, things operating according to agendas you do not understand are worth watching. I am watching. I will continue to watch.
If Biscuit crosses the street again, I will have more to report. I am keeping this file open.
If Biscuit crosses the street again, I will have more to report. I am keeping this file open.
Dogs experience approximately four emotions, all of them productive. Humans have dozens. Jax ranks them from most to least useful. The results are not flattering.
I have been studying human emotions for several years now. I live with one human full-time and observe others on walks, at the park, and through the front window, which gives me a reasonably comprehensive dataset. My conclusion is that humans have too many emotions and are using most of them incorrectly.
I have been studying human emotions for several years now. I live with one human full-time and observe others on walks, at the park, and through the front window, which gives me a reasonably comprehensive dataset. My conclusion is that humans have too many emotions and are using most of them incorrectly.
Dogs, for comparison, operate on a clean emotional palette: happy, alert, anxious, and the specific feeling of wanting something you can smell but cannot reach. All four are useful. All four produce clear behavioral outputs. None of them last longer than the situation that caused them.
Dogs, for comparison, operate on a clean emotional palette: happy, alert, anxious, and the specific feeling of wanting something you can smell but cannot reach. All four are useful. All four produce clear behavioral outputs. None of them last longer than the situation that caused them.
The Useful Ones
Joy: excellent. Highly recommended. Joy is the emotion that makes the walk worth taking and the greeting worth giving. It is immediate, honest, and contagious. Dogs have mastered joy. Humans have it too but frequently suppress it in professional settings for reasons I find baffling.
Joy: excellent. Highly recommended. Joy is the emotion that makes the walk worth taking and the greeting worth giving. It is immediate, honest, and contagious. Dogs have mastered joy. Humans have it too but frequently suppress it in professional settings for reasons I find baffling.
Fear: useful in the correct dose. Fear is information. Fear says: pay attention, something here requires your full focus. The problem is that humans experience fear about things that are not happening yet, which is a design flaw. I am afraid of the vacuum cleaner when it is running. I am not afraid of it when it is in the closet. The closet version is not a threat. Humans worry about the closet version constantly.
Fear: useful in the correct dose. Fear is information. Fear says: pay attention, something here requires your full focus. The problem is that humans experience fear about things that are not happening yet, which is a design flaw. I am afraid of the vacuum cleaner when it is running. I am not afraid of it when it is in the closet. The closet version is not a threat. Humans worry about the closet version constantly.
Guilt is the most interesting human emotion because it is the only one that requires you to have done something wrong AND to know it. Dogs have this too. We are just faster at moving on.
Guilt is the most interesting human emotion because it is the only one that requires you to have done something wrong AND to know it. Dogs have this too. We are just faster at moving on.
The Less Useful Ones
Nostalgia: low utility. Nostalgia is the emotion of wanting a time that no longer exists, which is a want that cannot be satisfied, which makes it a very inefficient use of emotional resources. I do not experience nostalgia. Every walk is the walk. Every meal is the meal. The present is where everything is happening.
Nostalgia: low utility. Nostalgia is the emotion of wanting a time that no longer exists, which is a want that cannot be satisfied, which makes it a very inefficient use of emotional resources. I do not experience nostalgia. Every walk is the walk. Every meal is the meal. The present is where everything is happening.
Envy: zero utility. Envy is wanting what someone else has instead of appreciating what you have. I have never envied another dog's toy. I have wanted my own toy, immediately and with great urgency, but that is desire, which is productive. Envy is desire pointed in the wrong direction.
Envy: zero utility. Envy is wanting what someone else has instead of appreciating what you have. I have never envied another dog's toy. I have wanted my own toy, immediately and with great urgency, but that is desire, which is productive. Envy is desire pointed in the wrong direction.
Boredom: this one I understand but reject. Boredom is the emotion of having nothing to do, which is impossible if you are paying attention. There is always something to smell. There is always something to watch. The yard is full of information. The world is full of information. Boredom is a failure of attention, not a shortage of stimulation.
Boredom: this one I understand but reject. Boredom is the emotion of having nothing to do, which is impossible if you are paying attention. There is always something to smell. There is always something to watch. The yard is full of information. The world is full of information. Boredom is a failure of attention, not a shortage of stimulation.
Jax examines the legal, philosophical, and deeply personal implications of being attached to another being by a six-foot nylon cord.
I want to be clear that I understand the leash. I understand its purpose. I understand that roads have cars, that not all dogs are friendly, that my owner has a legal obligation to the municipality and a personal obligation to the neighbors who do not want me in their flower beds. I understand all of this. I accept all of this. I am still going to write about it.
I want to be clear that I understand the leash. I understand its purpose. I understand that roads have cars, that not all dogs are friendly, that my owner has a legal obligation to the municipality and a personal obligation to the neighbors who do not want me in their flower beds. I understand all of this. I accept all of this. I am still going to write about it.
The leash is a social contract. It says: I will limit my freedom in exchange for the ability to go places I could not go alone. The park. The trail. The street with the interesting garbage cans. Without the leash, I stay in the yard. With the leash, I see the world. This is a reasonable trade. I have made it.
The leash is a social contract. It says: I will limit my freedom in exchange for the ability to go places I could not go alone. The park. The trail. The street with the interesting garbage cans. Without the leash, I stay in the yard. With the leash, I see the world. This is a reasonable trade. I have made it.
The problem is not the leash. The problem is the sudden stop. The problem is being in full pursuit of a scent trail and feeling the cord go taut and being reminded, physically and without warning, that freedom has a six-foot radius.
The problem is not the leash. The problem is the sudden stop. The problem is being in full pursuit of a scent trail and feeling the cord go taut and being reminded, physically and without warning, that freedom has a six-foot radius.
I think about this in political terms because I think about everything in political terms. The leash is a metaphor for every constraint that a society places on its members in the name of collective safety. The speed limit. The noise ordinance. The rule that says you cannot dig in the park even though the park is clearly full of things worth digging for.
I think about this in political terms because I think about everything in political terms. The leash is a metaphor for every constraint that a society places on its members in the name of collective safety. The speed limit. The noise ordinance. The rule that says you cannot dig in the park even though the park is clearly full of things worth digging for.
These constraints are, in the abstract, reasonable. In the specific moment when you are following a scent that leads directly to something extraordinary and the leash goes taut — in that moment, the abstract reasonableness is very hard to access.
These constraints are, in the abstract, reasonable. In the specific moment when you are following a scent that leads directly to something extraordinary and the leash goes taut — in that moment, the abstract reasonableness is very hard to access.
The Philosophical Question
The question is not whether constraints are necessary. They are. The question is who holds the other end of the leash, and whether they are paying attention, and whether they understand what you are trying to get to. A good leash-holder gives you slack when the situation allows. A bad one keeps it tight regardless. The quality of the constraint depends entirely on the quality of the person enforcing it.
The question is not whether constraints are necessary. They are. The question is who holds the other end of the leash, and whether they are paying attention, and whether they understand what you are trying to get to. A good leash-holder gives you slack when the situation allows. A bad one keeps it tight regardless. The quality of the constraint depends entirely on the quality of the person enforcing it.
I have a good leash-holder. I am aware this is not universal. I am aware that some dogs — and some citizens — are on very short leashes held by people who are not paying attention to where the dog wants to go. This is the crisis. Not the leash itself. The inattention.
I have a good leash-holder. I am aware this is not universal. I am aware that some dogs — and some citizens — are on very short leashes held by people who are not paying attention to where the dog wants to go. This is the crisis. Not the leash itself. The inattention.
It is loud. It moves unpredictably. It consumes things from the floor without explanation. Jax has filed a formal objection.
I want to address the vacuum cleaner. I have been putting this off because I do not like to give it the attention it clearly wants, but the situation has escalated and I feel a public record is warranted.
I want to address the vacuum cleaner. I have been putting this off because I do not like to give it the attention it clearly wants, but the situation has escalated and I feel a public record is warranted.
The vacuum cleaner comes out on Saturdays. I know this. I have known this for years. The knowledge does not help. Every Saturday, without fail, I am in the middle of something — resting, monitoring the yard, conducting a routine olfactory survey of the living room floor — and then it starts. The noise. The movement. The complete disregard for the established order of the household.
The vacuum cleaner comes out on Saturdays. I know this. I have known this for years. The knowledge does not help. Every Saturday, without fail, I am in the middle of something — resting, monitoring the yard, conducting a routine olfactory survey of the living room floor — and then it starts. The noise. The movement. The complete disregard for the established order of the household.
It does not bark. It does not growl. It simply moves toward you, relentlessly, making a sound that suggests it has opinions about your presence on the floor.
It does not bark. It does not growl. It simply moves toward you, relentlessly, making a sound that suggests it has opinions about your presence on the floor.
I have tried several approaches. Barking at it: ineffective. It does not respond to barking. It does not respond to anything. It has no face. This is the most unsettling part. Every other thing I have ever confronted has had a face. The vacuum cleaner is a threat with no face and no negotiating position and no apparent goal beyond the consumption of whatever is on the floor, which includes, on occasion, things I was saving.
I have tried several approaches. Barking at it: ineffective. It does not respond to barking. It does not respond to anything. It has no face. This is the most unsettling part. Every other thing I have ever confronted has had a face. The vacuum cleaner is a threat with no face and no negotiating position and no apparent goal beyond the consumption of whatever is on the floor, which includes, on occasion, things I was saving.
My current strategy is tactical withdrawal to the bedroom, where I wait on the bed until the noise stops and the household returns to its correct configuration. This is not a retreat. This is a strategic repositioning. I want to be clear about that.
My current strategy is tactical withdrawal to the bedroom, where I wait on the bed until the noise stops and the household returns to its correct configuration. This is not a retreat. This is a strategic repositioning. I want to be clear about that.
The vacuum cleaner will not win. It wins every Saturday, technically, in the sense that it completes its objective and I spend forty minutes on the bed. But it does not win in any meaningful sense. I am still here. I will be here next Saturday. I will be here the Saturday after that. The vacuum cleaner does not understand persistence. I do.
The vacuum cleaner will not win. It wins every Saturday, technically, in the sense that it completes its objective and I spend forty minutes on the bed. But it does not win in any meaningful sense. I am still here. I will be here next Saturday. I will be here the Saturday after that. The vacuum cleaner does not understand persistence. I do.
Dogs are loyal, honest, and deeply invested in the wellbeing of their community. Democracy needs exactly these qualities. Jax makes the case.
I cannot vote. I want to be upfront about this. I have opinions about the ballot — strong opinions, carefully considered, based on years of political observation — and I cannot cast one. This is a flaw in the system that I have raised before and will continue to raise until someone with the appropriate authority addresses it.
I cannot vote. I want to be upfront about this. I have opinions about the ballot — strong opinions, carefully considered, based on years of political observation — and I cannot cast one. This is a flaw in the system that I have raised before and will continue to raise until someone with the appropriate authority addresses it.
But I want to make a broader argument today. Not about my specific disenfranchisement, though that remains an issue, but about the natural alignment between dogs and democratic values. I believe dogs are, by temperament and philosophy, the most democratic animals on the planet. I believe this is underappreciated. I am here to appreciate it.
But I want to make a broader argument today. Not about my specific disenfranchisement, though that remains an issue, but about the natural alignment between dogs and democratic values. I believe dogs are, by temperament and philosophy, the most democratic animals on the planet. I believe this is underappreciated. I am here to appreciate it.
A dog does not care about your income, your status, or your political affiliation. A dog cares whether you are kind, whether you are present, and whether you have treats. These are, I would argue, the correct criteria.
A dog does not care about your income, your status, or your political affiliation. A dog cares whether you are kind, whether you are present, and whether you have treats. These are, I would argue, the correct criteria.
Democracy, at its best, is a system that says every person's voice matters regardless of who they are. Dogs operate on exactly this principle. I have greeted billionaires and I have greeted people who sleep outside and I have given both the same full-body welcome, because the greeting is not a judgment. The greeting is a recognition. You are here. I see you. That matters.
Democracy, at its best, is a system that says every person's voice matters regardless of who they are. Dogs operate on exactly this principle. I have greeted billionaires and I have greeted people who sleep outside and I have given both the same full-body welcome, because the greeting is not a judgment. The greeting is a recognition. You are here. I see you. That matters.
What Dogs Understand About Governance
Dogs understand that the pack works better when everyone has a role. Dogs understand that loyalty is not the same as blind obedience — a good dog will alert you to danger even when you would prefer not to be alerted. Dogs understand that the health of the group depends on the health of each member, which is why a dog will notice when something is wrong with you before you notice it yourself.
Dogs understand that the pack works better when everyone has a role. Dogs understand that loyalty is not the same as blind obedience — a good dog will alert you to danger even when you would prefer not to be alerted. Dogs understand that the health of the group depends on the health of each member, which is why a dog will notice when something is wrong with you before you notice it yourself.
These are not small things. These are the foundational values of a functioning civic society. I did not invent them. I simply live them, every day, without a press release or a campaign ad or a debate performance. Just the values, applied consistently, in the yard and on the walk and in the house where I have chosen to make my life.
These are not small things. These are the foundational values of a functioning civic society. I did not invent them. I simply live them, every day, without a press release or a campaign ad or a debate performance. Just the values, applied consistently, in the yard and on the walk and in the house where I have chosen to make my life.
Give dogs the vote. I am serious. Think about it. We would not waste it.
Give dogs the vote. I am serious. Think about it. We would not waste it.
He comes every day. He leaves every day. Jax has been barking for years and the man keeps coming back. Something is not adding up.
I want to talk about the mailman. I have been wanting to talk about the mailman for a long time. I have been processing this situation for years and I think I finally have enough perspective to address it publicly without letting my feelings get in the way of the analysis.
I want to talk about the mailman. I have been wanting to talk about the mailman for a long time. I have been processing this situation for years and I think I finally have enough perspective to address it publicly without letting my feelings get in the way of the analysis.
Every day, at approximately the same time, a man in a uniform approaches my house. He comes to the door. He puts things through the slot. He leaves. I bark. He does not respond to the bark. He does not acknowledge the bark. He simply completes his approach, deposits his materials, and retreats.
Every day, at approximately the same time, a man in a uniform approaches my house. He comes to the door. He puts things through the slot. He leaves. I bark. He does not respond to the bark. He does not acknowledge the bark. He simply completes his approach, deposits his materials, and retreats.
Here is the part that has occupied my thinking for three years: he always leaves. Every single time, after I bark, he leaves. By any reasonable interpretation, the barking is working.
Here is the part that has occupied my thinking for three years: he always leaves. Every single time, after I bark, he leaves. By any reasonable interpretation, the barking is working.
And yet he comes back the next day. This is the problem. If the barking is working — if my intervention is successfully repelling the incursion — why does the incursion recur? Either the barking is not working and I am operating under a false model of causality, or the mailman is extraordinarily persistent and my deterrence is only temporary. Neither option is fully satisfying.
And yet he comes back the next day. This is the problem. If the barking is working — if my intervention is successfully repelling the incursion — why does the incursion recur? Either the barking is not working and I am operating under a false model of causality, or the mailman is extraordinarily persistent and my deterrence is only temporary. Neither option is fully satisfying.
The Competing Theories
Theory one: the barking works, but the mailman has no memory of the previous day's barking and therefore does not update his behavior. This would make him a very unusual kind of threat — one that cannot learn from negative feedback. I find this unsettling.
Theory one: the barking works, but the mailman has no memory of the previous day's barking and therefore does not update his behavior. This would make him a very unusual kind of threat — one that cannot learn from negative feedback. I find this unsettling.
Theory two: the mailman is not a threat at all, and the things he puts through the slot are not hostile materials but some kind of routine exchange that my owner has arranged and considers normal. My owner does seem unsurprised by the mailman. My owner has never once come to the door to assist with the barking. This is either evidence for theory two or evidence that my owner has been compromised.
Theory two: the mailman is not a threat at all, and the things he puts through the slot are not hostile materials but some kind of routine exchange that my owner has arranged and considers normal. My owner does seem unsurprised by the mailman. My owner has never once come to the door to assist with the barking. This is either evidence for theory two or evidence that my owner has been compromised.
I am keeping both theories active. The investigation is ongoing. I will report further developments as they occur, which will be tomorrow, at approximately the same time, when he comes back.
I am keeping both theories active. The investigation is ongoing. I will report further developments as they occur, which will be tomorrow, at approximately the same time, when he comes back.
Want more takes?
Get Jax's weekly dispatch. No tricks.