WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

“REACTIONARY TIMES”

In which WOOF reports all the news unfit to fake; est. on April 19, 2017 at 3:39 pm

tech-elf-noahs-final-editor

In which WOOF’s editor in chief, Old Bugler, expresses his up-to-the-minute-if-frustratingly-excursive views on nothing but 100% guaranteed genuine news, mostly in the annoyingly-officious third-person, as befits his station!

_______________________________________________________

OUTRAGE: It Isn’t What it Used to Be!

–Byline: “Old Bugler”

Old Bugler wishes to admit at the outset of this commentary that he is not outraged. He makes this asseveration after an intensive exercise in self scrutiny and feels confident that he is correct. He simultaneously confesses feelings of encroaching isolation, as he witnesses so many of his fellow citizens succumbing to this bleak emotion.

The Wonder Woman crisis…

Even Wonder Woman looks outraged.

Take armpit hair, for instance. Apparently, Wonder Woman doesn’t have any, or put more correctly: Gal Godot, the ephemerally significant superstar currently portraying Wonder Woman on the silver screen, doesn’t have any—a detail Old Bugler might have gone the rest of his life without noticing were it not for legions of keen-eyed feminists who deluged the usual media outlets with their declarations of outrage. Even the once-staid FORBES complained that “…Wonder Woman’s armpits… represent the entire struggle with which a modern woman must grapple daily: I am woman, hear me roar, but…let me take away everything I am so I can be everything you want me to be.” Really, FORBES? And this without a hint of sardonicism? Great Hera! (No pun intended.)

Wonder Woman survived the hotly pro-feminist ’70s with shaven pits–and nobody minded at all.

Old Bugler frankly and outspokenly doubts the sanity of anyone willing to assert that “the entire struggle with which a modern woman must grapple” is represented by Wonder Woman’s armpits, but he may be underestimating the matter.  And besides, somewhat confusingly, an equal number of British Subjects appear to react angrily to hairy armpits, a pair of which were disported on a morning ITV1 show by one Emer O’Toole, a comely Irish “research student” whose appearance appears to have ramified solely from her decision to become “furry and proud of it,” the better to protest “pressure on women to conform to artificial gender norms.” But no sooner had Miss O’Toole displayed her profoundly piliferous pits (glimpsable here, for the stout of heart) than swarms of British viewers declared themselves outraged.  Are these viewers not concerned with the tyranny of artificial gender norms?

As the above panel from the Golden Age of comics should suffice to demonstrate, even paleo-Wonder Woman shaved her armpits!

Perhaps then, Emer O’Toole should play Wonder Woman, and Gal Godot should appear on British morning TV; but hardcore comic book fans would be outraged in either case because alterations made to their heroine’s outfit also seem to provoke outrage. Nowadays, of course, even using the word ‘heroine’ is likely to promote outrage, but Old Burglar doesn’t care. More to the present point, the blog NERVE reports that NBC revised its TV Wonder Woman costume to look “slightly less like a sex outfit…after fan outrage.”  And outrage, again, reportedly led to Wonder Woman being stripped of her title as United Nations Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls back in 2016, only two months after her elevation to that status was announced.  Old Bugler confesses some concern that the Amazon princess’s feelings were toyed with in so callous a fashion, but that’s the United Nations for you.

Hera today, gone tomorrow. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Modern outrage is not, of course, restricted to armpits and Wonder Woman. In fact, this reporter has noted that not a day passes without the confection of some new “outrage” by the mainstream media attributable to President Trump’s actions or pronouncements. Also notable is the fact that news readers who report these ostensible enormities seem to forget them by the time they convene to recite Mr. Trump’s newest outrage de jure. How else to account for the fact that such alert looking young ladies and gentlemen (all of whom display an amazing identicality of timing and phraseology no matter what their network affiliations) seem oblivious of how severely their latest allegations conflict with the details of Mr. Trump’s previously reported outrages? But the modern capacity for outrage is not, of course, limited to newscasters, TV viewers, or even feminists.

Language that sort of offends you…..

Wallace Loh, speaking Spanish to the outraged….

Readers may have noticed that university students are consistently outraged.  So much so that they have begun to describe themselves as outraged when their faculties expect them to maintain acceptable GPAs despite having to devote a majority of their college careers to demonstrating how outraged they are. Old Bugler offers as one example the petition signed by 1,300 young learners at Oberlin College demanding their proctors “get rid of any grade below a C,”owing to the extraordinary amounts of time socially responsible students found necessary to devote to anti-Trump activism. But America’s colleges are not solely outraged by the Donald. No sooner had the University of Maryland declared itself a “sanctuary campus” (meaning it was willing to violate federal and state laws in order to burnish its social-justice image among leftists) than Hispanic students and social-justice devotees in general pronounced themselves “outraged” because when UM’s President Wallace Loh announced the university’s sanctuary status, he had the audacity to deliver part of his remarks in Spanish (which, incidentally, is his native tongue). Students fumed that Loh’s bilingual performance implied that all illegal refugees are Mexican. One outraged scholar explained, “As a student you want to know that your university stands by you and won’t use language that sort of offends you.”

Some days, you just can’t burn a flag!

Muslim students as well as numerous other non-Muslim but equally sensitive students at the University of Missouri were outraged when members of their campus’s Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), , joined together to form the “Missouri University Coalition for those Killed by ISIS” and burned the terrorist organization’s infamous  black flag. Meanwhile, outraged students at UC Berkeley rioted upon discovering that Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos planned to address them. So outraged were they, in fact, that the students felt it necessary to set property fires, vandalize buildings, and threaten Mr. Yiannopoulos’s life.

Similarly outraged young scholars at NYU rioted to protest a speech by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. The conservative McInnes was scheduled to address the campus Young Republicans but was forced off stage, in the event, by outraged social-justice protagonists shouting “Whose campus? Our campus!” which they further emphasized by pepper spraying the unfortunate Mr. McInnes.  Seemingly, the Young Republicans at NYU are expected to find another campus, although the rioters were not clear in this regard.

Frederick Douglas: To praise him is to micro-aggress?

Without wishing to risk boresome elaboration, Old Bugler offers for consideration the outrage expressed by Michiganian environauts following news that Orvana Resources – a subsidiary of Highland Copper – had undertaken to advance that state’s foundering economy through exploratory drilling in the upper peninsula’s Porcupine Mountains; the outrage expressed by the habitually outraged Congressional Black Caucus when Donald Trump waxed so craven as to heap praise upon abolitionist Frederick Douglass (who died in 1895) as someone “who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more,” thereby, apparently, discounting all subsequent achievements by Black people; and the outrage widely expressed by liberals everywhere upon discovering that vice president Pence will not dine alone with women other than his wife—this last outrage being widely cited as disempowering women—although Old Bugler has yet to grasp how.

Planetary umbrage?

The many faces of student outrage.

Why, one might ask oneself, is everyone nowadays outraged? Has the world become qualitatively more outrageous? Your humble editor thinks otherwise.  Decades ago, Malcolm Muggeridge warned that advances in media would cause us to perceive these times as unprecedentedly horrific whereas, in fact, our newfound capacity to learn of all calamities everywhere simultaneously merely creates that impression. Viewed in that context, pandemic outrage seems understandable, but also unwarranted.  Even psychologists seem slowly to be approaching the realization that outrage is a false flag operation.  A peer-reviewed study in the recent edition of Motivation and Emotion finds that “moral outrage at third-party transgressions is sometimes a means of reducing guilt over one’s own moral failings and restoring a moral identity.” Like many of psychology’s most lauded discoveries, it is tempting to file this one under “duh,” except that Old Bugler believes the authors may be letting their subjects off too easily.

In the age of Twitter, the sound bite, and the instantly inferrable microaggression, outrage has become more than what Reason editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown sensibly dismissed as “a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms [and] to reinforce…one’s own status as a Very Good Person.” True, outrage often fulfills such functions, nowadays called “virtue signaling,” but its rapidly advancing artificiality as displayed by so many unthinking practitioners of “social justice” reveals still-shallower motives.  University students, for instance, are signaling not only virtue, but an unprecedented appetence for being led by the nose by professors and media pundits whose alacritous patsies they become without offering so much as token resistance. True, a leftist establishment whose policy and philosophical failures are indefensible must needs resign itself to the evocation of mass sanctimony as its only viable recourse– but is everyone suddenly so riven with feelings of “personal culpability” as to take the bait?  As usual, the mechanisms of liberal ire are less than meet the eye.

White women scolding themselves, aka: virtue signaling.

A bunch of maroons….

College students pronouncing themselves outraged are merely the less creative, less well-educated descendents of those who scarfed down goldfish during the Roaring Twenties (which today would strike many as outrageous) or stuffed themselves into phone booths during the 1950s, which struck everyone as stupid, even then. Nobody would care that youth’s misguided enthusiasms are nowadays more self important, except that today’s social-justice faddists wreck stuff, burn stuff, hurt people, and demand “safe spaces” when anybody objects. Their knack for demanding things is an inheritance from the radical students of the ‘60s who are now their professors, parents, or grandparents.  Critical faculties necessary to challenging the sociological guff their professors trowel out have been denied today’s college set by our neutered educational system, allowing radical teachers to cunningly redirect their rebellious impulses toward cutout social constructs that either don’t exist (as in global warming) or that will cringingly absorb even the most insensate criticisms without retaliating (as in corporations) or that only the most conspicuous sort of blockhead would bother himself to give a tinker’s damn about–(as, say, the imperilled condition of the East Usambara speckled grasshopper).  As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a bunch of maroons!”

Despite such valiant efforts to perpetuate their species as demonstrated here by these two dedicated specimens, the ranks of the Tanzanian East Usambara speckled grasshopper continue to dwindle, environmentalists report.

Take BREXIT for instance–while the liberals took polls, British patriots took action.

Old Bugler exhorts WOOF readers to avoid outrage. It may once have enjoyed a substantive currency, but no longer. The lexical inflation of outrage as a concept is almost entirely ascribable to nounal abuse from the Left, which has left the usage a vapid, debased conceit best met with calm, or, when possible, indifference. For the Right, contemporary outrage is nearly always better met with ridicule than replication. Take the creation of the wonderfully infectious term “snowflakes” to describe these collegial mutton heads, who, as Dr. Domenick J. Maglio forecast in his perspicacious tome Invasion Within, bully us only so long as they are not confronted, and metamorphose into wimps as soon as authentic confrontation is offered. In each instance of media or collegial outrage, let us resolve to respond with laughter, perhaps even jeers, but always with forceful, constructive action into the bargain.

Seriously–can you picture the students who solemnly created and brandished this poster and not burst out laughing? 

Speak truth to snowflakes…

The worst thing about contemporary outrage, after all, is that it suffices as a sort of action onto itself, relieving the “virtue signaler” of the responsibility of actually doing something useful about whatever he purports to deem outrageous. Waging the fight to re-establish conservative values, views, and governance in the land is therefore both an effective response, and an exploitation of the Left’s most conspicuous weakness: its lack of strategies appealing to anyone outside of the balkanized honeycomb of special interests, brainwashed university children, and manufactured minorities that constitute its post-Obaman base.

Our young American snowflakes and the addlepate generations of radical potheads who raised and educated them deserve exposure to alternatives from the Right, not reflections of their own emotionalism and pseudo-moralistic pomposity. Let us offer them truth, criticism, and humor, rather than a mirror image of faux indignation. Cast off the malignant histrionics of the Left, gentle readers. Let us offer a choice, not an echo.  Or is that phrase still considered outrageous? 

WHAT THE FOX? (How the Murdoch Brothers Hatched a Plan that ‘FOX over’ FNC Viewers while Saving the Planet and Sparing their Wives Further Embarrassment!)

In "The Media are the Massage" forum on May 22, 2017 at 3:37 pm

There is an old adage, familiar to most, that if something works, one should not attempt to fix it. We have no doubt the vast majority of our readers are conversant with this saying, and alert to its meaning; so much so that to explain it here for the benefit of the culturally illiterate seems pointless; first because it ill-repays everyone else’s kind attention, and second, because that rare reader who requires assistance comprehending so obvious a maxim will doubtless be equally bollixed by any attempt at elucidation. Therefore, we suggest that the apprehending majority proceed to this article’s gravamen, while the uncomprehending minority may also elect to proceed, placing its reliance on context in order to establish insight. Or, some may prefer to click over to, say, Infowars, where chemtrails, Pizza gate, and other sinister phenomena, are discussed in simple, easily comprehended terms.

But before plunging fully into the aforementioned gravamen, allow us to point out that unlike so many familiar aphorisms graven into the American psyche, the idea that something need not be repaired if it functions smoothly is virtually irrefutable. One may hear, “he who hesitates is lost,” for instance, and think ironically of Custer’s Last Stand—or reconsider the sagacity of “slow and steady wins the race,” in light of Jeb Bush’s disastrously phlegmatic bid for the presidency. But almost everybody agrees that a marvelously efficient apparatus need not be overhauled in the moment (continuous quality improvement notwithstanding), and this seems even more apparent when the apparatus is essential to some aspect of the nation’s cultural welfare—as is Fox News.

So, if  ‘he who hesitates is lost’ is wrong, but so is ‘slow and steady wins the race,’ how confusing is that?

We at WOOF gaze with considerable dismay upon the widely reported efforts to dismantle the Fox News Channel, or, put more exactly, to transform it—to reshape its core into something bound to prove anathema to the tastes and expectations of its millions of loyal viewers.

Some predicted Turner’s CNN would counter liberal media bias–but when Ted went hunting with Castro and married Jane Fonda, hope perished.

Not even the liberal media could invent a means of diminishing or obfuscating Fox’s primacy among the 24-hour news contenders. A public trained to think “CNN” when it thought of around-the-clock news broadcasting, came despite itself to an awareness that Fox News dwarfed Ted Turner’s band of whiny propagandists in the ratings…and, put frankly, in news coverage. True, a sizable sub-population of that public remained aloof from FNC’s programming, persuaded by the full force of the Liberal Establishment that Fox comprised little beyond an assortment of thunderously fascistic Cro-Magnons, babbling blond Stepford Anchorwomen (whose vacuous skulls had been filled with GOP talking points), and a supporting cast of Republican Party shills whose main function, the Left insisted, was to tell lies.

Lois of “Family Guy” actually enjoyed a brief career at Fox News Channel.

The mythology of Fox’s reliance on calculated prevarication was soon run threadbare by the progressive hierarchy to the point that it became an object of satire on the cartoon program Family Guy. In one episode, for example, Lois, the cartoon housewife, is seen ranting about Fox’s inveracity when she is challenged by the family dog (who talks). The dog accuses her of hyperbole, but Lois doubles down, snarling, “Everything on Fox News is a lie… even true things, once said on Fox News, become lies!” Certainly, that was the official view of the Obama Administration for eight years. But while the “Fox lies!” mantra busied the tongues of besotted liberals and frightened off, one must assume, legions of the irreclaimably naïve, it proved insufficient to thwart FNC’s rise to cable supremacy.

In the beginning…

The late Roger Ailes–looking rightward.

It was February of 1996 when Australian publisher and multimedia mogul Rupert Murdoch hired former GOP strategist-cum-NBC producer Roger Ailes to mastermind the Fox News Channel. Scoffers marveled at the stupidity of “reinventing CNN,” simultaneously pointing out that NBC was launching MSNBC (does anyone know what that actually stands for?) and that a 24-hour news channel run by so hallowed and sacrosanct a broadcasting entity as NBC in combination with the ultra-branded CNN would obviously crush any upstart competitors.

Fox’s refusal to play by the rules of establishment (read: liberal) journalism made it instantly attractive to conservatives among whom Murdoch’s experiment built a swiftly expanding viewership. Moreover, Fox presented liberal viewpoints by a far greater ratio than conservatism appeared elsewhere, thus moderates began to admire the fresh approach too. During the Republican National Convention in 2000, Fox’s ratings handily outpaced all three major (which is to say, hallowed and sacrosanct) news networks, and increased another 300 percent during the American invasion of Iraq.

Heresy!

Hmmm–something’s up.

Further digression into particulars needn’t consume us. Suffice it that Fox climbed from obscurity to the position of America’s number one source for cable news at so dazzling a velocity that establishment progressives were hard pressed to internalize, let alone oppose, the phenomenon. Slowly, in that recalcitrant way in which ponderous beasts react to some peripheral annoyance, the Left began to recognize the magnitude of Murdoch’s heresy. For establishment panjandra, this entailed a more challenging cognitive adjustment than one might suppose. It required stretching the liberal weltanschauung to accommodate three distasteful propositions.

Shattering paradigm (file photo)

First, the guardians of America’s informational orthodoxy were obliged to accept that the major networks, whose news divisions were known to be hallowed and  sacrosanct if only by dint of their ritualistic practice of so describing themselves, had been outclassed in the ratings war by a bunch of conservatives and neocons with no entrée into the progressive guild, and no interest in seeking any. This realization alone was, as the lexicographically slipshod might say, paradigm shattering.

Second, one could not efficiently analyze the success of Fox without acknowledging coinstantaneously that American TV viewers liked Fox’s handling of events more than any competing network’s, and sometimes more than any combination of them, because on a really dark day FNC would pull higher numbers than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC put together.

The Nielsen ratings– an inconvenient truth.

Third, these facts conduced ineluctably toward one of two available conclusions, neither of which inspired optimism on the Left. Either (a) the American people were more inclined to conservatism than to liberalism, which would disprove longstanding elitist claims to the contrary–or else, (b) vast enclaves of otherwise sensibly progressive citizens were tuning in Fox News every night, beguiled by Roger Ailes’s media sorcery. Once hooked, such viewers apparently surrendered their adjudicative powers and descended ever deeper into the reactionary abyss where they were irretrievably transformed by Murdoch’s dark alchemy. These poor wretches—and there appeared to be millions of them– misperceived themselves as entertained and informed whereas in fact they were merely the former, any semblance of the latter being so interlarded with lies, distortions, and bigotry, as to render it dismissible.

Regarding the above, notice that whether one embraces the first or second alternative, the leftwing perspective relies on the barely concealed subtext that Americans are stupid. (Stupid being the most widely circulated synonym among progressives for ‘not liberal.’) But better they be stupid on account of Roger Ailes’s magical mental manipulations than by mere dictate of nature, and thus the second option of the third proposition carried the day, explaining the second proposition, and maybe even the first. And so was born the “Fox-lies!” mantra, echoed robotically by liberals everywhere, even today. Not only does Fox lie, but in the progressive estimation, Fox lies so skillfully and seductively that Americans prefer it– not only because many of them are stupid (meaning ‘not liberal’), or even because quite a few more are simply stupid, (meaning stupid, in the general sense of acceptation), but mainly because the majority are, in fact, stupefied, which is to say, mesmerized by Rupert Murdoch’s insidious legerdemain. Enter now the progressive passion for “re-education.”

“Just a FOX story!”

For two decades now, Americans have endured a withering barrage of propaganda from every conduit dispensing left-leaning commentary (which is nearly all of them), to the effect that Fox lies, Fox isn’t really a news network (an Obaman favorite), Fox is homophobic, Fox is racist, Fox is Islamophobic, Fox is—well, you get the idea. The enterprising liberal eristic (of that subspecies at least one specimen of which inevitably winds up at Thanksgiving dinner) will always have an ample supply of politically-correct insertions in mind, whereby the basic anti-Fox template may be adjusted to address almost any conversational variant.

“Ummm…lessee…’Operation Fast and Furious?’ Ummm…I think that’s just a Fox Story.”

The Obama administration made excellent tactical use of this planted axiom. Whenever Fox went to air with details of yet another Obama travesty, Obama or one of his acolytes would smirk and declare, “Well, that’s just a Fox story!” and reporters would snicker, nod, and forget the matter. In fact, the President on such occasions was speaking literal truth, since the near-absolute refusal by establishment networks to spotlight anything unfavorable to the regime meant that any hint of scandal, blunder, or illegality associated with Obama was instantly “spiked,” with the predictable result that Fox would be the only network reporting it. Thus, almost every one of the administration’s miscreancies over eight years of unprecedented contempt for law, truth, and the Constitution, might be accurately described as “just a Fox story!”

As vociferously as the liberal networks promulgate this interpretation of Fox’s appeal, one might reasonably assume some effect would be had—but efforts by the punditry to warn viewers of Fox’s wanton disregard for the higher principles of responsible (read: liberal) reportage made no measurable dent in Fox’s ratings. One reason, obviously, was that no matter how often or how emphatically the liberal networks rehearsed Fox’s infamies, no means existed by which to inform the masses–other than by purchasing advertising space on Fox News, which claimed most of the viewers. For the elites in New York, D.C. and Los Angeles, such ignominy would be unendurable, so the likes of Chris Matthews and Don Lemon found themselves limited to warning their comparatively miniscule audiences that Fox was awful—a belief already shared, presumably, by most of their viewers. Small wonder if the resultant frustration drove certain of these journalistic Titans to the occasional social drink.

Looking on the bright side, Fox’s deliverance from the grip of its fascistic, warmongering, misogynistic former executives may have a salvific effect on Don Lemon’s liver.

Following America’s penultimate attempt at national suicide, (we refer here to the 2008 presidential election), President Obama joined in the effort, lambasting Fox News at every opportunity from the Bully Pulpit, even attempting on one occasion to lock Fox out of a news conference, and whining incessantly to anyone who would listen about the colossal unfairness of Fox’s coverage, which often criticized him, whereas all the other televised news operations waxed giddy at his approach.

In a reckless attempt to boost ratings, Joe Scarborough challenges Barney Frank to an impromptu game of patty-cake.

One might suppose that attacks by the administration combined with the exertions of establishment journalists and manipulations by the entertainment industry (which made Fox the butt of endless jokes inserted into movie and TV scripts, sitcoms, rap recordings, and late-night comedy monologues), would erode FNC’s popularity. Shown the error of their ways, thousands of repentant souls might reasonably be expected to grasp– however belatedly– the importance of watching real news as represented by credible journalists like Joe Scarborough (failed conservative talk radio host), or Van Jones (self-confessed communist subversive and 9/11 conspiracy theorist), Al Sharpton (diction-impaired race hustler and tax cheat), or certainly by old pros like Brian Williams (signer of the Declaration of Independence, first journalist to orbit the moon, Bronze Medal winner in Olympic Mahjong), but no! Despite eight years of unremitting, presidentially approved criticism, Fox News emerged unscathed.

Much of Fox’s success may be attributable the inadequacies of its competition. Even the ultra-elitist SALON admitted as recently as last November that “Watching MSNBC is pure torture!”

In fact, 2016 found Fox comfortably atop the ratings for basic cable viewers, prime time viewers, and “total day” viewers (a spot formerly ceded to CNN whose “branding” inclined more people to switch it on at some point in any week, however briefly). For emphasis, FNC delivered the best rated quarter for total viewers in the network’s history and spent ten consecutive weeks as the number one channel in total day viewers of all cable networks, bar none.

A series of unfortunate events…

But precisely at this point began what might be termed a series of unfortunate events, none of which, in any direct sense, reflected meddling by the organized Left. To begin with, a sudden flurry of charges was brought against Fox’s resident mastermind, Roger Ailes. Alysyn Camerota, for instance, charged Ailes with sexually harassing her during her stint at FNC following which Gretchen Carlson lodged similar accusations. Camerota’s complaints might be considered suspect by virtue of her subsequent CNN affiliation, while Carlson could reasonably be described as disgruntled, but when Megyn Kelly added her voice to the mix even as the venerable Greta Van Susteren (to whom WOOF invariably grants special dispensation on account of her being Urban Van Susteren’s daughter) switched from defending Ailes to tweeting her regrets that Ailes was “not better supervised,” the charges seemed substantial enough that few on the Right rushed to protest Ailes’s removal. Read more…

“The Devil and Barack Obama” (Part One: The Early Years)

In "Unfinished Waffles" forum on March 22, 2017 at 12:20 pm

d-and-o

Dear Mr. Obama:

Did you ever see the movie Big Jim McLain? We’re guessing probably not—for one thing, it stars John Wayne, and we don’t see you as a John Wayne guy, besides which it opens with a salute to the hard-working members of the House Un-American Activities Committee. We’re guessing you’d rather appear in an NRA commercial than display a scintilla of sympathy for an anticommunist bunch like HUAC.  But that’s not important now. What’s important is Daniel Webster.

The Webster Paradigm

We’ve seen media reports that you’re quite the scholar, Mr. Obama, so we needn’t remind you that Daniel Webster was the American statesman who twice served in the House of Representatives (for New Hampshire and Massachusetts) and then in the Senate (for Massachusetts) between and 1813 and 1827. No, not the guy who wrote the dictionary. That was Noah. No, not the Noah who built the ark—but anyway—the reason we thought of Daniel Webster as we began this effort to help you compose a true accounting of your presidency is because in Big Jim McLain there’s this spooky scene where you see Webster’s gravesite on a lightning-riven night, and the narrator intones these lines from Stephen Vincent Benet:

Webster’s grave as depicted in “Big Jim McLain.”

“Yes, Dan’l Webster’s dead—or, at least, they buried him. But every time there’s a thunderstorm around Marshfield, they say you can hear his rolling voice in the hollows of the sky. And they say that if you go to his grave and speak loud and clear, “Dan’l Webster—Dan’l Webster!” the ground’ll begin to shiver and the trees begin to shake. And after a while you’ll hear a deep voice saying, “Neighbor, how stands the Union?” Then you better answer the Union stands as she stood, rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible, or he’s liable to rear right out of the ground.”

Please don’t misinterpret that as a threat, sir. True, you wouldn’t pass muster, but we understand your public persona demands pretensions to patriotism, even as you chirpily dissemble your record in that sing-song manner to which we’ve all grown achingly accustomed. You did a good job of this last January on the occasion of your most recent farewell address. Presidents traditionally use such events to voice concerns and hopes for the Nation’s future, but somewhat unsurprisingly, you used the occasion to review what you perceived to be your greatest moments in office.  As journalist Caroline Baum remarked, “Why wait for others to assess your legacy when you can do it yourself?” But even the perspicacious Baum failed to note the dichotomy between the legacy you described, and your actual accomplishments—or between what Comrade Lenin called truth and objective truth.

The long farewell– from a man who says he’s not going anywhere! 

We understand how frustrating it must be to continuously burble misleading flummeries while no proper recognition can be given your genuine achievements as an agent of the Islamo-Fascist Left. Like Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov, you must find the thrill of getting away with the perfect crime dampened by the realization that nobody appreciates your brilliance. So in what follows, we at WOOF offer you an opportunity to give a complete accounting of the blows you rained upon the Republic, offered  mainly for the edification of a demonic dyad (see below) uniquely positioned to assess the impact of those blows, as well as to applaud those manifold  instances in which your famously incomputable intellect sufficed to keep you several steps ahead of the  clueless bourgeoisie.

Franklin’s arithmetic:

Ben Franklin wrote that ““Three May Keep a Secret if Two are Dead,” and that’s exactly what occurred to us while pondering how best to help you catalog your rascality without risking discovery by the masses. Our plan works a lot like Binet’s–only without Daniel Webster, of course–he being an old, dead White guy who’d throttle you on sight.  No, for Binet’s framework to fit our purpose, an antithetic approach was required entailing a very different historical icon–one occupying a very different gravesite. An iconic figure sympatico with your unwaivering revolutionary convictions. We refer here, of course, to Fidel Castro.

_____________________________________________

The Devil and Fidel Castro

fconeYou will doubtless have occasion in the not too distant future to revisit the imprisoned island of Cuba, upon which you recently lavished so much favor, even as you conveyed to its tyrannical leadership so many overt and implicit apologies for the sins of your predecessors. Once arrived and sumptuously quartered in environs palatial enough to gobsmack the average Cuban, you will want to seek out the resting place of Fidel Castro. As you know, his ashes are interred inside a big concrete blob at Santiago’s Santa Iphigenia Cemetery. It’s supposed to be a kernel of corn, but it looks more like the Rubbles’ house in Bedrock. Anyway, the point is, you will want to make a pilgrimage there the better to reenact the Big Jim McLain scene, mutatis mutandis.  We suggest you cry out,  “Primer Ministro Presidente, Comandante Fidel!” And imagine your thrill when he thunders back, “Comrade, how goes the struggle for el socialismo?”

El Comandante’s tomb is supposed to be a kernel of corn. Presumably the designer was shot.

(Except he will probably add remarks amounting to three or four additional hours of your time, in that inimitably loquacious way of his.  So bring a book. After all, Fidel’s penchant for giving five-hour speeches to audiences forbidden to leave their seats on pain of death or imprisonment, makes him the only world leader to have used–and on myriad occasions–even more personal pronouns per speech than yourself.  But then again, because Fidel gave such long speeches, he had more opportunities to praise himself than you had in your (comparatively) brief addresses. Judging the matter on an hourly rather than a per-speech basis, you’d win hands down. Take your speech in Austin back in 2014. You spoke for only 40 minutes, but managed to employ the pronouns “me,” “my,” and “I” one-hundred and ninety-nine times. Did you know, the entire Gettysburg Address only lasted about three minutes?  It contains a measly 272 words– and Lincoln didn’t use a single personal pronoun in the whole speech. What a wallflower!

Print this article!

No place to plug in a teleprompter at Fidel's tomb!

No place to plug in a teleprompter at Fidel’s tomb!

So, when Fidel finally finishes you must grab the opportunity to say something like:  ”The struggle for socialism, unh, goes pretty well, and, unh, I really stuck it to the unh, Yanquis who are so stupido they –-hah–elected me for two, unh, consecutive terms, and unh…” And…see the problem? Here’s where WOOF can really help out, because, that’s right: There’s no place to plug in a teleprompter at Fidel’s concrete lump, and even if there were, Cuban electrical power is notoriously spotty—did you remember to apologize for that? Anyway, you know how you get when you try to ad lib! So print these articles out, Mr. President, and bring them with you (if you can even get WOOF articles into Cuba, which come to think of it probably isn’t all that easy, but you’ve got pull.) Stick to our comprehensive script and we bet Fidel will just about jump right out of his cement blob and give you a big comradely smooch.

Iblis, aka Shaitan–the most important audience member!

But don’t draw the line at impressing your hero in the big grey blob…no, he’s just the intermediary–like a medium at a seance–or a big cigar-chomping ouija board. What matters most is to impress the big guy himself–El Diablo. You know: Iblīs— did we get that right?–you know who we’re talking about, and he’ll be listening all right, Mr, President–the third person in Franklin’s trilogy. Okay, he’s not dead like Fidel, but he’s not alive like we mortals–so Franklin’s maxim still applies. The Devil can keep a secret all right! So here’s what to say; stick to the script we’ve provided and you’ll do fine!

———Begin reading your statement HERE, Mr. President: ————

Carl Davidson’s articles appeared in “FORWARD,” a journal named for the classic battle cry of the Marxist Left. By complete coincidence, that was also my campaign slogan in 2012!

“To begin with, right from birth I was the cause of confusion and dissent, only most of it didn’t boil over until I ran for president. See, I was born on August 4th in Mombasa—that’s in Kenya—in 1961, just a year before the Americans blundered into the Bay of Pigs, isn’t that right Comandante? LOL! Anyway, I always told everyone I was born in Kenya; but by the time I was running for senate, comrades like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Carl Davidson— started to worry abut that.  I know the Comandante knows Carl, because he personally contacted him and told him America was ready for revolution, remember? Anyway, as soon as my fellow radicals,  ex-weather underground mentors and a few of my favorite CPUSA-type professors came up with the idea of my national political career, they pointed out I had to be born in America—just in case I ever tried running for president. Those were some smart folks, guys—I mean—Fidel and—Mr. Devil, sir, or…can I call you Iblis? Maybe just Old Nick!

Bill and Bernardine: My staunch supporters, advisors, and political advocates in Chicago, pictured here in more carefree times.

Multiple births, multiple mysteries:

“After all the advice I got, I realized I was probably born in Honolulu, Hawaii, (coincidentally, on the same day that I was born in Mombasa) so Hawaii became my updated birthplace, even though I seem to have registered as a foreign student in college. And there were all those brochures left around from 1995 publicizing my forthcoming book, Journeys in Black and White–which never actually forthcame, heh, heh,  saying  I ‘was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.’  In fact, my Kenyan birth was still going strong as recently as 2007 as publicity for my next book–which actually did get written.  I liked the Kenyan version because being a real African always impresses “African Americans” cuz, let’s face it, the majority of ’em couldn’t find Africa on a map–and real Africans always leave white liberal academicians gasping in awe, so the Kenyan angle worked great. To tell you the truth, near as I’m able, I’m not exactly sure where I was born anymore–I was pretty young at the time. But  I think we can agree that confusion is a mighty weapon we wield against the forces of capitalism, reaction, and  all those backward hayseed southern fundamentalist churches that won’t support partial-birth abortion or transgender bathroom rights…you know, like the Catholics.

“But honestly, fellas, the truth is, Hillary really did start the whole “birther” thing back in ’08, like Trump said, only I’d never tell anybody else that. For starters, she sees all these memos and oppo-research findings about my total disconnect from anything authentically American–a fact I take great pride in, by the way–but politically not so good! Next, in unmistakable Clinton style– the emails get ‘leaked’ saying I’m Kenyan–or Jakartan, or Indonesian–and when everybody runs back to Hillary and asks her ‘Why are you sayin’ all this horrible stuff about Barack?’ (Because by then, remember, the media were trampling her in a mad rush over to my side), so she just pulls that bug-eyed face of hers where she looks like she’s never ever been so shocked in her life, you know–eye balls popping out of her head–and –classic Clinton–she turns around and fires the loyal staffers she had leaking this stuff, and tells the press, ‘oh–we traced those memos to a few renegade staffers but I got rid of them.’

“I mean those Clintons, you gotta admire their style– their knack for looking self righteous while they pump out whatever garbage they just made up– I have to say, I’m a big fan.  I’ve certainly tried doing it like that, but when I go for indignation I just come off snotty, so mostly I try to act suave and highbrow, but that bores people after a while, except Charlie Rose. I think I’m going more urban Black from here on out, droppin’ muh final G’s, an’ soundin’ like ah’m from the Chicago hood ‘stead of Indonesia by way of Hawaii. And just between us comrades, thousands of my admirers will totally buy the idea that I’m all of a sudden talking like Charlie Rangel or somebody, because, let’s face it, they’re morons–but I say, praise Allah for making so gosh darn many of ’em! Can I get an amen?

The road to the Whitehouse…

Me and George.

“Okay, some funny things happened on my way to the Oval Office–at first, of course, I didn’t think I could win. Like everybody, I figured Hillary was a shoe in, so  I just wanted to get my face out there.  I never doubted I could beat John McCain–that guy has the electability of a brain damaged tuber–plus, I swear he was rooting for Hillary–but  everything changed when the mainstream media just all of a sudden seemed to decide I was the guy. Like somebody pulled a switch. Okay, let’s face it, somebody did–so let’s give kudos to George Soros here, before I go any farther.  Me and George go back to 2004 when he threw me a fundraiser at his New York mansion. Up until then, there wasn’t any real money behind me because most of my supporters were communists or former Weather Underground terrorists– and the only work those people can get with that kind of background is pretty much limited to tenured positions at major universities. But Soros smeared my opponent and got me elected in Illinois, after which I served about 700 days, and ran for President!

Wright and Wrong

“Don’t turn your back on Islamic tradition–I’m still in the Bible!”

“So the next big deal was my history at Jeremiah Wright’s church, which we thought might end my chances, because there’s tons of video tape of him saying stuff like ‘God damn America’ and ranting about the Jews, and White people, except that none of the mainstream networks played those parts. So, I just claimed I sat in his church for 20 years, and never heard a word, which was obviously ridiculous—especially with him being my kids’ Godfather and one of my books being dedicated to him and quoting him about “the white man’s greed”and stuff–but the liberal media held solid and covered it up.  In retrospect, we totally overestimated the damage Wright could do me—first because voters just dopily accepted the idea that I sat nodding like a bobble doll in his church for 20 years and never heard a word he said, but also when stuff came out about how he’d mentored me and counseled me politically the whole time, we just called it right-wing nonsense. When it came out he taught Liberation Theology, which is really Marxism, as you fellas well know, the press didn’t go near it. And when that jackass Ed Klein Read more…