WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

Archive for December, 2013|Monthly archive page

“Gun Crazy”…Better than no guns at all?

In "Gunning for success" forum on December 23, 2013 at 10:01 am

gun crazy this one

Obviously, nobody in his right mind wants to advocate that the mentally ill be encouraged to own firearms. But permit us to analogize a bit. Nobody in his right mind wants to incite a nuclear holocaust, either—but that never made unilateral disarmament a valid alternative, except in the febrile imaginations of Chris Dodd, Teddy Kennedy and elements of the wastrel left that found themselves with time on their hands after Vietnam was surrendered to the communists. Nobody in his right mind wants a family to go bankrupt and lose its home and life savings because a beloved family member contracts cancer, but that doesn’t mean Obamacare is a rational solution to healthcare finance, as a bewildered (and lamentably bovine) nation is slowly coming to realize. In other words, the fallacy of the false alterative is an almost surefire liberal ploy by which to enact oppressive legislation and advance the socialist agenda. Indeed, as Americans become increasingly distracted by selfies, tweets, Facebook, and Snooki (whoever that is), they become even less proclived to examine issues of significance, let alone to examine them in careful detail—and that, of course, is one of the reasons WOOF is here….to do all that thinking and examining of issues for Americans who can’t find the time.

So as we were saying, although it constitutes the proverbial fool’s errand to argue against sane gun ownership, we here at WOOF have been contemplating precisely this argument since first remarking on the matter back in April of 2013 (viewable here) and we have concluded that we are the fools for the errand. And in this capacity, we need to open the discussion with a bit of history.

Even the First Marxist is taking selfies these days, although only the truly dedicated take them at funerals!

Even the First Marxist is taking “selfies” these days, although only the truly dedicated take them at funerals!

Early in 2013, close on the heels of the Sandy Hook atrocity, Chris Cox, the Legislative Action Director for the NRA, urged the Senate to focus on the mental health system. Because the Sandy Hook shooter seemed so patently disturbed, this tactic gave every indication of providing a sensible and far more realistic option to the usual liberal response of punishing legitimate gun owners and discovering fresh rationales for banning more varieties of firearms whose only commonality was that none of them was used at Sandy Hook.

Chris Cox of the NRA--too keen on mental health for his own good?

Chris Cox of the NRA–too keen on mental health for good sense?

Even so, in a free Republic where issues were stated honestly and debated openly by elected representatives while a concerned citizenry engaged in at least as much informed discussion of national affairs as of NFL playoffs or Pippi Longstocking’s porn career, one might reasonably assert that a gun purchaser’s mental health deserves consideration during the course of a firearm sale. Besides, Mr. Cox did not directly tie mental health criteria to the qualifications for gun ownership—he merely specified mental health concerns as being among those oft-neglected societal responsibilities that, if addressed properly, might go farther toward limiting gun violence than the usual anti-gun, anti-second amendment blatherings from the Left.  Cox, in other words, was saying, “hey, leave us gun owners alone and go get the mental health industry!” But in so saying he reckoned without the progressive movement’s affinity for harnessing psychiatry to Leviathan.

Jared Lee Loughner, Tucson shooter—the media wanted a tea-party assassin under orders from Palin, but got a "left wing, quite liberal pot head” according to acquaintances. But everyone agreed he was crazy!

Jared Lee Loughner, Tucson shooter—the media wanted a tea-party assassin under orders from Palin, but got a “left wing, quite liberal pot head” according to acquaintances. But everyone agreed he was crazy!

This is a dreadful oversight. It plays directly into the hands of the conspiracy to disarm Americans that drives large and determined factions of the anti-American Left. Beneath liberalism’s theatre of outrage and studied ululations of simpatico for the victims of gun violence lies a cynical, calculated operation aimed at expunging the second amendment or so drastically reinterpreting it that it allows only functionaries of the collectivist State to possess guns. Indeed, so exhilarating do liberals find gun slayings in America (insofar as they offer further pretexts for grabbing guns) that Eric Holder is openly known to have sought more of them through his exertions in Operation Fast and Furious. So duplicitous in these efforts are the Liberal Establishment Media that, as one example of many, an armed assault committed by a psychotic anarchist on a political gathering in Tucson where Federal District Court Chief Judge, John Roll (a Republican), was killed along with a nine-year-old girl, Christina-Taylor Green, and four others, was roundly laid at the feet of Sarah Palin, apparently because Palin’s website “targeted” the house seat of Gabrielle Gifford who was severely wounded during the shooting. So if Palin targeted Gabby Gifford, who targeted the Republican Judge who was actually slain? Who targeted the child? Who targeted building no. 7? (Sorry, wrong argument) Suffice it that the bizarre idea that Palin somehow bore responsibility for the actions of a lone homicidal maniac was granted legitimacy only by an assortment of media elitists who afforded the notion that level of solemn, chin-rubbing deliberation they always seem to reserve for the laughably indefensible.

The media fingered Palin as the brains behind the Tucson shootings--but she managed to beat the rap!

Sarah Palin–The media fingered her as the brains behind the Tucson shootings–but she managed to beat the rap!

Luckily, Palin survived the incident without being indicted by Eric Holder’s Justice Department for conspiracy to commit mayhem by web design. The mammoth Liberal anti-gun push that came out of such incidents as the Batman shootings, the above-mentioned Tucson shootings, the Sandy Hook killings (yes, they really happened), and a number of less broadly publicized incidents, seemed bound to ramify in a gun-control bill that would make a mockery of the second amendment, yet somehow this initiative fizzled and no fresh legislative push has thus far materialized, causing even the hyper vigilant NRA to guardedly acknowledge a welcome respite. Our Vice President’s advice to acquire double-barreled shotguns and to discharge both barrels into the black of night if ever we as citizens should deem our safety threatened has become a viral remix, and this too seemed to quell the rage of the anti-gun cohort at least sufficiently to inspire a truce. Sighs of relief were audible on the Right.

Even Breitbart joined the chorus, publishing AWR Hawkins to the effect that, “After failing to pass any gun control at the federal level during 2013, the White House has signaled its intention to lay off guns for a time and focus on mental health.”  A remarkable number of conservative and libertarian opinionists echoed Hawkins’s sentiment. Slate’s John Dickerson bemoaned the failure of the Senate’s anti-gun salient, lamenting that, “Democrats—who are so quick to blame Republicans for our broken gun laws—could not stand united.” The president famously staged a hissy fit in the rose garden and the news cycle faded, leaving everyone to conclude that indeed, it was more in keeping with the zeitgeist to consider better mental health treatment for the masses.

Even Mark Follman at the subversive periodical Mother Jones wrote that an examination of the mass shooters recorded between 1982 and 2012 showed that, “acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them.” Follman also made the point that 38 of those shooters showed some indications of lesser varieties of mental illness prior to their respective rampages.

Of course, the Left has occasionally called Mr. LaPierre's sanity into question...but hey, he likes guns!

Of course, some have occasionally called Mr. LaPierre’s sanity into question…but hey, he likes guns!

Meanwhile, back at the NRA, chief executive Wayne LaPierre took to the microphones and recommended the establishment of a national registry of the mentally ill as a better means by which to curb gun violence. LaPierre voiced his quite reasonable concern that mentally ill Americans constitute a more grievous threat to the commonweal than .223 rifles, and suggested that they might be roaming the streets in something like profusion. “How,” he asked, “can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?”

Wow! If one were of a sanguine disposition, one might go so far as to suppose that LaPierre had effectuated a kind of miraculous breakthrough here—a kind of Begin-and-Sadat handclasp across a desert of supposedly unbreachable divisions resulting in a wondrous détente between anti-gun crusaders and the nation’s millions of ardent shooters. Many anti-gun advocates including the subversive Mayors Against Illegal Guns clown act, advocated measures reminiscent of LaPierre’s proposal. The Washington Post applauded LaPierre’s statement, and many tenacious anti-gun senators embraced mental health legislation as “a way forward.” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and fake Vietnam vet, who has pushed for tougher gun laws since last year’s elementary school massacre in Newtown, declared that, “Mental health is really the key to unlocking this issue. I’ve become more and more convinced that we should establish the mental health issue as our common ground.”

Game theory


And if these sudden cries of kumbaya from both factions weren’t recommendation enough, senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who we need hardly mention was a driving proponent of the failed Senate gun grab, is now obdurately, not to say poutily, resisting efforts to initiate action on any mental health provisions, declaring them a sop to the pro-gun lobby. Reid apparently views the mental health issue as a diversionary tactic likely to hinder future Democrat efforts to debauch the Bill of Rights. Game theory may be useful here: Is Reid opposed to the advancement of mental health legislation for the reasons he claims, or is he feigning opposition, certain that his outspokenness will motivate Republicans to push all the harder for a mental health bill, which is what he really wants in the first place?

Harry Reid--definitely petulant.

Harry Reid–definitely petulant.

Answer: Without getting into the interstices of the Nash Equilibrium, suffice it that Reid is often more immediately motivated by petulance than any sort of refined tactical intent—he is also an experienced hand at shifting his stated position on a dime without so much as a mumble in explication or even acknowledgement of the shift—and his motives are therefore recognizably craven rather than exchange oriented. But the impact of a successful bluff is identical to the impact of a confidently played royal flush—the opposition loses. In reverse psychology, the opposition advances in a manner unwittingly supportive of the opponent’s ends. In this instance, where the proponents of mental health legislation occupied both sides of the aisle (the Left assuming a ploy on Reid’s part, the Right reacting to Reid’s presumed opposition) the advocates of mental-health activism advanced on all fronts! Thus, whether Reid is best adjudged a tactician or a nincompoop, the-mental-heath issue was strengthened by his blatherings. And that’s bad. That’s very bad.

Perceptions of purityimagesCA2B2DLI

Most Americans fell for Barack Obama’s healthcare scam because they believed him when he told them they could keep their doctors. Insurance plans are important, yes, and if the public had been told (by somebody besides us and the rest of conservative America) that they were about to be herded into intolerably expensive substitute plans that would cover less and supply pathetically little, they would have bridled to be sure. But it is only as Americans discover that their doctors will in most cases be replaced by whatever third stringers accept the government’s coin in exchange for their dubious services that we will see Americans rendered truly aghast at the lunarscape of socialist medicine. From the days of Lew Ayres’ and Lionel Barrymore’s Doctor Kildare movies through the soap operatic tenure of Young Dr. Malone, through Ben Casey, the Bold Ones, and yes, even House (who was redeemable for his genius, after all) the escutcheon of American medicine has remained ublotted in the public eye. Now, the public prepares itself to confront a new medicine—a cut rate, unsympathetic statist affair replete with waiting lines, surgical permissions, bossy bureaucrats, governmental snooping (is there a gun in your home?) and, yes, of course, death panels. Why was this so hard to anticipate for so many? Because medicine in America is (was) widely seen as a pure, unsullied realm of competency and noble commitment—so why not make it free to boot? Most of us just aren’t deep thinkers, sad to say.

imagesCA2TNW8USwitch now to the American view of mental health workers—psychologists, counselors, psychotherapists, psychiatrists—people who study long and hard to get where they are, driven by a profound determination to be of help to their fellow human beings—to bring succor to the anguished and address the roots of turmoil in the contemporary psyche. What is more widely and openly espoused in our culture than therapy? What is more heartily indulged than medications aimed at uplifting our fallen spirits? And who more trusted than the assessors, hourly confidants and prescribers who seek only our emotional betterment?  In the mental health field too, a glimmer of purity arrests base suspicions, but when you think about it, why would the Obamans leave this vital quadrant of the health field out of their schemes? What a waste it would be to let the massive mental health industry function freely, when it could be so much more useful if incorporated as a component of the totalitarian state! In short, the Left would have to be nuts not to grab up the mental health field while it has the chance. And the sorry truth is, it won’t require much grabbing!

The Leftmost Scientismmarx_freud

Long ago in the Reagan ‘80s the World Psychiatric Association condemned the Soviet Union for its invention of “sluggish schizophrenia”–sometimes called “creeping schizophrenia,” a diagnosis invented by Commie Master-Psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky and reserved for anybody whose loyalty to the Soviet system seemed to be foundering. In other words, its symptomology made opposition to the State a severe mental illness requiring all sorts of chemical and electro-convulsive interventions!  “Patients” in soviet mental hospitals were zapped and injected until their resistance to the state faded along with their mental competencies and their will. This is the sort of totalitarian nightmare we once shook our heads at in disbelief in the Free West. “It could never happen here,” we told ourselves, but these perversions of psychiatry, once thought of as peculiar to the Communist east, are ripe now for inclusion in an America that has undergone what our Beloved Helmsman called a “fundamental transformation.” Don’t doubt for a moment that American psychologists, psychiatrists and therapists will become willing, even enthusiastic functionaries of the new American order. To a frightening degree, this has happened already.

In China an unemployed man stabbed 28 children (most of them 4-year-olds) and 3 adults at a kindergarten. On Wednesday, a former teacher with a history of mental illness stabbed 15 children at a primary school. On that same day a 42-year-old man was executed for killing 8 children in a knife attack at a primary school.

In China an unemployed man stabbed 28 children and 3 adults at a kindergarten. A teacher stabbed 15 children at a primary school. On that same day a 42-year-old man was executed for killing 8 children in a knife attack at a primary school. No guns, though–so whew!

The field of psychology is utterly dominated by extreme liberals. WOOF does not know of a single credible source that disputes this point. In a brilliant, hard hitting, and generally ignored article in American Psychologist, University of Virginia Professor Richard E. Redding demonstrated conclusively that liberalism maintains an iron grip on research and practice in the field, which distorts findings and skews policy to the extreme left. More recently, survey research has demonstrated that many social psychologists would unhesitatingly discriminate based on politics. Almost 40% of those interviewed readily acknowledged that, given equally qualified conservative and liberal job applicants, liberal candidates should be hired over conservative candidates as a matter of routine.

Dr. Cross is White, by the way--shouldn't the guy who formulated the black racial identity scale by Black?  (It's okay--he's liberal!)

Dr. Cross looks white, by the way–shouldn’t the guy who formulated the black racial identity scale look black? (It’s okay–he’s liberal!)

Dr. Nicholas Cummings, once president of the American Psychological Association, says the organization that he formerly helmed is now completely governed by “ultra-liberals” who are militantly devoted to advancing the leftist agenda. In psychology, please recall, the liberal agenda includes the “pathologizing” of such manifest evils as “homophobia,” Eurocentric resistance to “multiculturalism,” the infamous neurosis of failed “nigrescence”  (when blacks fail to achieve proper “black racial identity” values—perhaps becoming conservatives), not to mention resistance to the advancement of feminist social goals, and, yes, to be sure, gun ownership!

Because you’re stupid!

Satoshi Kanazawa --smart enough to know you're stupid!

Satoshi Kanazawa –smart enough to know you’re stupid!

At least when the liberal media are confronted with their sociopolitical biases, they have the decency to deny them. Not so the liberal psychological establishment. A widely cited and quoted article  explains this lack of philosophical balance rather handily. The articlepublished in the Social Psychology Quarterly, is the work of one Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Kanazawa represents himself as “libertarian,” and insists that his findings are therefore not to be regarded as biased. He asserts, with almost no evidence whatsoever, that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and even includes an explanation of why. The explanation is that liberals favor helping non-genetically related individuals—a concept foreign to the hunter gatherer mentality (allegedly found in Conservatives) and are therefore more intellectually evolved. Stop laughing–we are not making this up! It is worth noting here (without any hint of endorsement, allow us to emphasize) that when Arthur Jensen presented extensive research in 1969 suggesting that Blacks possess lower mean IQs than Whites, he was practically hounded from his professorship at University of California Berkeley.

Genius at work?

Genius at work?

Jensen also, by the way, asserted that conceptual, or synthesizing abilities manifest at significantly greater frequencies in Asians than in Whites, (which may explain why WOOF just can’t understand Kanazawa) but nobody cared—Jensen was marginalized in the profession by accusations of crypto-fascism and generally dismissed as a racist nut. Apparently, Conservatives are not to be similarly defended nor Kanazawa’s findings similarly denounced despite the fact that his work is almost hilariously inexact by comparison to Jensen’s. But in Kanazawa’s view, the liberal orthodoxy finds a rationale for spurning philosophical diversity. “Liberals do control the media,” Kanazawa explains, “or the [sic] show business, or the [sic] academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions.  They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of…modern life.” See? Liberals control everything, because you’re stupid!  And, thus, science marches on!

Consider how the American Psychiatric Association cured homosexuality…

You could probably have lived out the remainder of your life happily ignorant of the existence of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual if you hadn’t decided to read this article! The vaunted “DSM” is the official compendium of all mental-health diagnoses, as well as categories of mental retardation, eating and sleeping disorders, learning, motor skill, communication and attention disorders, plus a bunch of related stuff. In the United States the DSM serves as the universal authority for psychiatric diagnosis.  As they say in clinical settings, if it’s not in the DSM you can’t have it, because if it’s not in the DSM, insurance won’t cover it.

dsm_5The highly political nature of the DSM has long been a matter of concern even to liberal clinicians. The most notorious instance of liberalism overriding anything resembling the scientific method involved homosexuality. Now pay attention, because this is going to go by fast: The original DSM issued in 1952 called homosexuality a form of sociopathy and categorized it as a personality disturbance, but when the DSM II came out in 1968 homosexuals were listed as suffering from a sexual deviancy. Then came Gay Lib and hordes of placard waving Gay activists storming meetings of the DSM editorial board, and by 1973 homosexuality was no longer a mental disorder of any kind, according to the DSM; but this outraged therapists who were treating conflicted, unhappy Gay clients so that by 1980, with the emergence of the DSM III, a new category of ego-dystonic homosexuality was created (meaning Gays who were suffering psychologically because they were upset about being Gay). The Gay community, however, would not stand for the idea that anybody could be bothered by being Gay and once again rallied against the alleged homophobes at the DSM. The DSM’s board reconvened and decided that ego-dystonic homosexuality didn’t really exist either. The diagnosis is nowhere to be found in the text revision of the DSM III published in 1986. Ever since, psychiatrists and psychologists dealing with unhappy Gays have been sneaking them in under “Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified” while the new DSM V is concerned not at all with Gays, (who are apparently all okay nowadays), but exhibits a heightened interest in treating the distress that accompanies gender dysphoria resulting from our culture, which, you may be shocked to discover, stigmatizes people who do not conform to gender norms. Got all that? Obviously, all of these changes were sociopolitical rather than clinical in origin—WOOF mentions them only because they typify the highly politicized nature of the mental health establishment in America, and its diagnostic “bible.”

A .50 caliber autoloader, or a newly discovered sexual paraphilia?

A .50 caliber autoloader, or a newly discovered sexual paraphilia?

The new DSM V has already borne much criticism from concerned practitioners for lowering the diagnostic threshold of all disorders, which will obviously expand the number of people who meet the criteria for diagnostic labeling while increasing the likelihood of false-positive diagnoses. This should concern America’s gun owners, especially taken in correlation with the DSM’s proven tendency to accommodate leftist philosophies without reference to empirical evidence supportive of such positional adjustments. Of equal concern, surely, is the new DSM’s examination of “sociocultural variation” – the definition of which is so loosely constructed as to virtually invite the capricious labeling of any perceived sociopolitical deviance as a mental disorder. These elements alone should give pause to thoughtful advocates of an armed citizenry. Do we really want the American Psychiatric Association organizing a committee to review the sociopolitical deviancy of wanting to own an AR-15, or a fifty-caliber Desert Eagle?

Catch .223?


Long ago the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz undertook to demonstrate that psychiatry labels behaviors as mental illness when said behaviors threaten societal norms, thus most diagnoses of mental illness, Szasz contends, amount to politically and culturally motivated forms of repression. Remember also that the liberal academics and clinicians at the helm of the APA, American Counseling Association, and other major mental health organizations have not the slightest interest in what Americans qua Americans consider cultural or societal norms—they are entirely intent on advancing their own norms—the norms of the ultra-leftist faculty-lounge, born of arrogance and insularity. As if in complicity with Obama’s march toward totalitarianism, the DSM 5 crafts a cunningly slippery slope by introducing the concept of Behavioral Addictions—an amorphous concept that, with a little imagineering, can serve to make a mental disorder out of anything anybody does excessively—and, of course, “excessively” is defined by the attending professional. Simultaneously, as mentioned, the new DSM lowers the threshold at which such diagnostic judgments may be imposed.

images Consider the wisdom of Dr. Allen Frances, M.D., former chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and current professor emeritus at Duke, who said of gun control: “We must go much further. No civilian—mentally ill or not—ever needs or deserves access to a military-style assault weapon that is capable of killing dozens of people in a few short minutes. The pleasure that some gun enthusiasts seem to take in owning and firing these weapons is not an inalienable constitutional right deserving second amendment protection.”  Did that get your attention?  Yes, we know, your twelve-year old’s pump action .22 is “capable of killing dozens of people in a few short minutes” but seriously, do you think Dr. Frances gives a rat’s patoot? His goal is the eventual elimination of all legitimately owned firearms in civilian hands. He’d just like to start with your AR-15 because it looks scariest. And Dr. Frances speaks for the majority in his profession.

There is already an instrument by which DSM-V-based denials of firearms purchases can be imposed. Part of the federal government’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the Brady Check. This “safeguard” against possession of firearms by the mentally ill amounts to a repository of centralized data allowing “experts” to sift through the records of individual American gun purchasers with the intent of identifying and disqualifying any who transpire to suffer from a mental illness. Naturally, the final decision following an NICS/Brady Check would be made by a team of government psychiatrists.

All of this amounts to an obvious Catch-22 in the works for Americans naive enough to suppose that government can be depended on to bring psychiatry to bear upon the problem of mentally unstable individuals coming into the possession of firearms. A federal government determined to nullify the second amendment without facing a constitutional showdown need only subvert the psychiatric and psychological professions and impose gun control in the guise of a per-saltum leap forward in national mental hygiene. And the Obama Administration needn’t lift a finger to subvert America’s mental health professionals—they are already Leftist, Democrat, and anti gun.

teen-screen-psychiatrists-are-hereIt remains only to construct the following diagnostic paradox: All American citizens are guaranteed the right to own guns under the second amendment—unless they are found to be mentally unstable. But since only mentally unstable Americans would ever want to own firearms, all who wish to own firearms must be refused the right to own firearms on the grounds of mental instability. Wasn’t that simple?

Americans idolized men like these in the 1950's, but today we realize they were depraved psychotics!

Americans idolized men like these in the 1950’s, but today we suspect they were all depraved psychopaths!

From Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia to Obama’s America, wherever totalitarianism has sought to establish itself, psychiatry has become its willing handmaiden. The great majority of America’s mental health practitioners are dedicated janissaries of the Left who have shown time and time again that they will willingly substitute their elitist ideology for the scientific process whenever it serves the cause of socialism. We must persuade our well-intentioned representatives, the leadership of the National Rifle Association, and our neighbors, to resist the siren song of psychiatric oversight in the matter of gun procurement and ownership. The establishment is playing good men and women for suckers, luring them into a seemingly wholesome concordance with the Left in pursuit of increased mental-health oversight as a means to a safer armed society. The actual purpose of this seemingly salubrious endeavor is the dissolution of our right to bear arms. It must be resisted by every American determined to preserve our Constitution, and by every mental health professional courageous enough to resist the tide of collectivism sweeping through his profession and his nation.


Any review of the Framers’ quotes relating to the establishment of the second amendment would quickly persuade a contemporary liberal– Dr. Allen Frances, for instance—that our government was designed by a benighted cluster of slathering psychotics, so enthralled do they seem by the prospect of national gun ownership! And while it may be true that none of the first ten amendments was intended to be held most vital by Americans, it is unarguably true that none of them can be secured so assuredly as by the second! It may be quite true, also, that Madison and his compatriots never foresaw the development of a Bushmaster or a semi-automatic shotgun, but by the same token they never foresaw the NSA, drones, the IRS, legislation by presidential directive, or mandatory health care. Patrick Henry may best have emphasized the primacy of the 2nd amendment when he cautioned Americans to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

Of course, now that we think about it, Patrick Henry may have been a bit off his nut...can't be too careful! severely

Of course, now that we think about it, Patrick Henry may have been a bit off his nut, too!

Extreme Climate Change is Real! Help WOOF fight Global Cooling!

In "Apocalypse NOT" forum on December 11, 2013 at 9:11 pm


Global warming is not much discussed nowadays by the Scientific Left, as you have probably noticed—it is a term used mainly (and derisively) by reactionary troglodytes like your lovable gang of cyber-activists here in the WOOF cave, and by slower-witted liberals who have not kept abreast of trends. The scientific elite, and all the pop-cultural and pop-political entities that feed upon and echo its pronouncements, no longer refer to global warming. They refer instead to “climate change,” which concept incorporates the duo advantages of meaninglessness (because the climate is always changing, obviously) and indefeasibility (because you can’t disprove climate change—it’s everywhere we look)!  But lest we be misunderstood, we should not be construed to be arguing that global warming has faded from the liberal consciousness. Make no mistake about it, “climate change” is roughly synonymous with global warming, except that it cannot be disproved.

Does that seem weird? Well, it probably should. But the Left didn’t simply rebrand global warming as climate change because it seems more marketable. It did so mainly to avoid the burden of proving anything. Proving that the planet “has a fever,” for example, as the execrable Albert Gore likes to rave, became increasingly difficult over the past 15 years of planetary cooling. There are really only two ways to proceed in the absence of evidence; namely, to claim that there actually is evidence, or to rationalize the fact that there isn’t. We all know that the global-warming scientists tried the first idea first.

220px-The_Day_the_Earth_Caught_Fire_(movie_poster)Actually, to be fair, their first efforts seemed  based on a profound conviction that the planet was hurdling toward a fiery fate. Unless one is planning on folding one’s tent and getting out of town, one does not typically make vehement predictions that will ultimately be observed to be incorrect; yet top scientists everywhere confidently forecast extremes of rainfall and drought worldwide, as well as hurricane seasons of unprecedented violence and duration. Except for events attributable to El Nino and La Nina, however, no such trends materialized, with this summer’s hurricane season the tamest since the early nineteenth century. Winters, of course, were predicted to become less wintry—with snow just a romantic memory. Back in the year 2000, Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, announced that snowfall was soon to become “a very rare and exciting event,” adding, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is!”  Strangely, however, the last 15 years have shown a lowering of winter temperatures all over the world, with many winter seasons setting all-time records or proving the coldest and lengthiest in decades.


Professor Wieslaw Maslowski–“Already too conservative…?”

And of course, while photographers hastened to shoot snaps of any surviving snow clumps in hopes of preserving a pictorial history of this rapidly waning phenomenon, the global ice caps were supposed to melt. As recently as 2007 a consortium of experts on global warming announced that their computer models showed the arctic would be ice free by 2013.  But Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California disagreed, sniffing, “You can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”  In other words, the poles were melting a lot faster than even Maslowski’s colleagues had asserted. And Maslowski wasn’t finished. “This is not a cycle,” he thundered, “Not a fluctuation! In the end it will all just melt away!”

Oddly, however, a quick check of the Arctic Sea (now that it is in fact 2013 and has been all year) shows a 60% increase in the Arctic ice pack just since 2012. In fact, ice now covers one million square miles of the Arctic Ocean. Likewise, Antarctic ice has steadily trended upward since 1980. That said, WOOF as always strives to be fair, and Albert Gore told the 2009 Copenhagen climate change summit (once it got underway despite almost prohibitive blizzard conditions) that his latest research showed the Arctic would be completely ice-free in five years—and that means all the ice may vanish next year, so there’s that.

How hot is Sarah?

imagesCAIEF5S1Alaska was said to be warming and losing its glaciers, and it is fair to say that Alaska’s warming was reported with especial alacrity by many climatologists who saw this somehow as a slap at Sarah Palin and all that she represented. (Let’s see Todd go snowmobiling when there’s nothing left but mud!)  But as early as 2002 the University of Colorado’s renowned glacier expert, Professor Mark Meir, predicted the disappearance of glaciers in the Alps, southern Alaska and the Patagonian mountain range in South America. “In 20 years, you’ll be able to visit ‘Non-Glacier National Park’” quipped Meir, “and If you want to see the snows on Kilimanjaro, you’d better go soon.” But it’s been 12 years since Meir’s warning and Alaska has logged in with two of its bitterest winters on record, namely the winters of 2007-8 and 2011-12, while glaciers advanced more than at any time since the Ice Age…and the snows of Kilimanjaro remain obdurately intact, too.

Surf’s (not) up?

imagesCAQTFKQXOceans were supposed to get warmer, of course, and the sea level was slated to rise, soon to engulf New York City and large portions of California, per Al Gore, but these phenomena have also stalled. According to disappointed spokespeople at NOAA, no statistically significant warming has been measured in the uppermost 300 meters in the tropical Pacific, for instance, since the 1950s. And are the seas rising? We are all aware, (yes, even those of us who live in a cave), that trillions of dollars must be poured into combating global warming by supporting “green” initiatives–because such initiatives may be the world’s only hope of halting the disastrous rise in sea levels that will otherwise topple the statue of liberty, sweep traffic from the Golden Gate Bridge and leave ocean liners stranded in the wheat fields of Topeka. So how goes the struggle? Actually, really well!

imagesCA422WJ7 Despite the fact that Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth predicted a 20 foot rise in the sea level, (there was a nice shot of San Francisco underwater that accompanied this prediction) it seems that the sea level has remained fairly static. Perhaps sobered by Mr. Gore’s failure to summon the consuming tides, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared, rather more conservatively, that our seas would rise by a comparatively modest 17 inches, but the oceans of the world remain unresponsive. As many of you know, WOOF’s cave is on the Atlantic coastline, enabling us to take daily calibrations–and so far there’s nothing exciting to report; it’s just about the same everyday with allowances made for tides and weather conditions. The same boresomely anticlimactic stasis is reported by our Left Coast affiliates who dutifully check ocean levels at Long Beach a few times each month—same deal!  Florida—same deal! Shanghai was also slated by Gore for inundation , but so far Shanghai too remains above water with no perceptible increase in the thalassic surround. How did we get so lucky?


Three oft-told tales:

It will not astonish you, gentle readers, to learn that opinions differ—but three possible explanations present themselves most forcefully. First, the advocates of man-made global warming insist that the sea levels will rise at any moment, and that it will be even worse than predicted… so says the notoriously leftist British newspaper The Guardian.  And they figured it out scientifically. They decided to ask 360 scientists who support global-warming theory. These scientists responded to a questionnaire—and they all said the seas would rise and that by 2100 (or some said 2300) it would be really, really, really bad. And that’s survey sampling, gentle readers, and it comes with pie charts, so it’s science, got that?


The more rational explanation, of course, is that President Obama by his very presence halted all pelagic encroachments worldwide. In fact, he wasn’t even president yet–it was upon securing the Democrat nomination that senator Obama informed an adulatory group of supporters in St. Paul, Minnesota that, “This is the moment when the rise of oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal!” The nominee never made it clear, really, why nominating him for the presidency had exerted so immediate and salubrious an effect world wide, but whether it is a mere post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc coincidence, as some extreme skeptics have suggested, or whether it was the raw force of some supernal power vested in the First Marxist, the fact remains: The man said the seas would stay put, and they did! (He seems, for that matter, to have put the kibosh on hurricane seasons, too, with fewer such storms recorded during his administration than during any other president’s!)


But we said three explanations, and here’s the third: The most widely acknowledged and respected expert on ocean levels and the science that affects them is arguably the Swedish geologist and physicist Doctor Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the prestigious International Commission on Sea Level Change. If he were a tenured American professor he would have been unceremoniously stripped of his academic position by now, denounced by his peers, and cast penniless into the nearest available trailer park as retribution for his betrayal of liberal scientific orthodoxy. Fortunately for Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, he is Swedish, and being Swedish ranks among the coolest thing you can possibly be when you address the American Left, so his pronouncements on this subject have been respectfully ignored, rather than universally condemned.

Doctor Morner: Too cool to castigate, too right to mention!

Doctor Morner: Too cool to castigate, too right to mention!

Dr. Mörner, who spent the last 40 years of his life using nearly every known means of scientific inquiry to assess, investigate, and predict sea levels, offers a rather concise explanation for oceanic intransigence: “The sea is not rising,” he says. (Say, could that be it?)  “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.”  Even more discouragingly, Morner adds that fundamental laws of physics pertaining to the amount of latent heat required to melt ice guarantee that nothing resembling the apocalyptic visions of Al Gore can manifest during this century. The best evidence of Dr. Morner’s accuracy is that nobody in media or in academe is ever heard or seen referring to his conclusions.

The double crosser

untitledstateBefore the growing number of reputable scientists who are calling shenanigans on man-made global warming dared to speak out, there was a shocking defection from the arts—that cultural enclave so reliably liberal that any heterodox utterance is automatically regarded as deplorable—almost inconceivable. You take a guy like Michael Crichton, the hugely successful novelist whose books always get made into movies—you know, like The Andromeda Strain, and Jurassic Park, and Congo and The Terminal Man—all of them except State of Fear. In 2004 Crichton wandered onto the TODAY show and sat down for a cozy chat with an unsuspecting Katie Couric who purred that his latest book was about global warming and asked him, with obvious anticipation, to elaborate. “It’s a hoax,” Crichton told her, at which point Couric’s face froze in dumbstruck horror. After all, Hollywood liked Crichton—they optioned all his novels–how could he have changed into a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal just in time for her interview? It was a classic moment in TV entertainment—and needless to say Crichton was dutifully savaged by every right-minded (which is to say left-of-center) reviewer, concerned scientist, and editorial writer available to join the onslaught. Even upon his death the man was roundly decried as a dangerous apostate by scientists who pretended to be writing his obituary.


Katie Couric welcomes Michael Crichton to TODAY

The consensus mob

Crichton had slammed point blank into the monolith of science as practiced by the new rules of political correctitude. He had caused a disturbance in the force–affronted the man-made global-warming uni-mind. Nobody paused to congratulate him on taking a controversial and unpopular view in the interest of broadening the scientific discourse—no, they just wanted him gone. They let him know in no uncertain terms that he had no business flying in the face of scientific “consensus,” to use one of Albert Gore’s favorite words—and that he must, consequently, be shunned and excoriated. But before he turned his attentions elsewhere, Crichton mocked the entire “warmist” ethos by giving a lecture at Caltech satirically entitled “Aliens cause global warming.” What he had to say in that lecture bears another hearing:

imagesCAT73REE“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

The sore losers


This angry polar bear came to the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit in 2009, demanding to get his paws on Phil Jones–but Jones never appeared and only FOX News interviewed the bear.

Meanwhile, the consensus was developing some problems of its own—the kind that screaming at Michael Crichton could not resolve. A series of leaked and hacked emails revealed that skulduggery was afoot at the Hadley Climate Research Unit, followed by similar revelations involving New Zealand’s NWIA, Australia’s climate center, and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Professor Phil Jones at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, became the symbol of psuedo-scientifc dastardliness inasmuch as his every leaked memo seemed redolent of conspiracy and deception. In a thoroughly ironic sense, Jones was the embodiment of candor, since he was always quite straightforward about the need to hide the evidence of global cooling, ignore colleagues who were not “helping the cause,” and most of all to continue receiving grant monies even when it meant hiding any data that that might jeopardize the funding.  “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones wrote of some contradictory findings he wanted flushed. WOOF considers it hugely telling that he added, ““I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” In other words, the U.S. Department of Energy was in on the cover up. (Shocking!)

imagesWhen the “Climate Audit” website detected problems with some of the warming evidence, Phil Jones did not hesitate to communicate his concern to fellow climate alarmist Michael Mann at Penn State, casually asking him, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the…problem in the Nature paper!!”

In other words, the main idea among all these men of science was to keep the grant money flowing by shaping (or deleting) their findings to whatever degree necessary in order to uphold the global-warming sham. As Jonathon Overpeck (man of science in charge of reporting the IPCC’s climate assessments) made plain: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”  This is the antithesis of science. Rather than gathering evidence and basing a conclusion on it, the gang at IPCC was already agreed upon the necessary conclusion, and throwing out all the evidence that challeneged it.

And here's Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explaining that his predictions that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 were based on nothing in particular. He won the Nobel Prize, by the way.

And here’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explaining that his predictions that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 were based on nothing in particular. He won the Nobel Prize, by the way.

Needless to say the scientific community has churned out volumes of carefully rationalized twaddle in an attempt to dissuade the laity from supposing anything untoward might be afoot in the pure realm of climate science—and interested parties can Google these entertaining efforts at their leisure. In the wake of “Climategate,” however, the image of the dedicated environmentalist in a white lab coat, fighting to save Mother Gaia from the smelting furnace of eternity, has been forever tarnished.

Hope and change– and the current ambivalence

But a larger problem beset the noble climate warriors—larger even than the seemingly endless examples of duplicitous emails and underhanded memos that gushed from their files. An even bigger problem, given the pitiless march of time, was the simple lack of “face validity” inherent in their hypotheses. In other words, freezing winters, breezy summers, lackluster hurricane seasons and oceans that just sat there being oceans, began to fetch skepticism from the public. Meanwhile, wintry extremes continued to obtrude themselves upon the public psyche. An example of this, in concentrated form, is “the Gore Effect.” This is the hypothesized tendency of unseasonably cold temperatures, punishing hail, and/or record-breaking accumulations of snow to manifest whenever Al Gore visits an area to lecture on global warming! As an hypothesis, it must be remarked, it is better substantiated by objective data than man-made global warming has ever been or is ever likely to be!  But that is no longer quite the concern it was, because as we said at the outset, global warming is no longer much discussed or written of—it having undergone a mysterious metamorphosis and transformed itself into “climate change.”

Al in a blizzard: The lyin' in winter?

Al in a blizzard: The lyin’ in winter?

If you doubt that climate science is a product of the landscape painters who by manipulation of our media set the scene for our societal concerns and anxieties, consider how the one problem became the other with barely a whisper of protest from any quarter, Indeed, the paltry evidence for warming was simply discarded, finally, as too inconsequential to support the continuing snow job, (besides, those leaked emails looked really bad) and in its place we are offered “climate change,” for which we have ample evidence at hand at any given moment. The climate, after all, changes continuously. And because the mere idea of climate changing from day to day is admittedly too bland and to scare or inspire people, a number of suitably dramatic adjectives are vying for routinization in tandem with the new phrase, given us with barely a glimmer of explanation. Why explain it, after all, when within 6 months you can have every citizen alert to the phrase by virtue of its constant reiteration within the medias’ echo chamber while every “responsible” scientist in need of tenure, some TV time, a grant, or simple fraternal acceptance, will announce that he is devoted to fixing it—whatever it is.

Remember the Ice Age?


But there is something innately unscientific about adjectives—they are so often subjective. Shall we settle on “extreme climate change” or “global climate change” or maybe just “man-made climate change?” And what is the Left sacrificing in the way of tactical leverage as it repairs to this second redoubt within the walls?  What we mean is, they are now retreating to approximately where they were to begin with in the nineteen seventies when all the leading climate scientists were telling us that a new ice age was fast approaching.

It is difficult to recall now that only thirty years ago the top international climate scientists (including many who are now determined to advocate for global warming) were solemnly enjoining us to prepare to be frozen to death as the planet plunged into the cosmic deep freeze. The theory gained tremendous interest and generated considerable concern, but fell victim ultimately to the same face-validity problem that currently besets the warming argument—it just didn’t seem to be happening.  But the whole idea of global freezing came with one additional drawback—it didn’t seem particularly ascribable. The era of the scientist/moralist was not yet in full swing, although it was getting under way where pollution was concerned—because pollution was going to kill us all for a while back then—and over-population, which was also scheduled to kill us all for about a decade).


Schizoid TIME covers–but what if they were right the first time?

The Left, freshly deprived of Vietnam and Richard Nixon, was not particularly interested in the return of the ice age, because it gave Leftists nothing to despise, rant against, and feel morally superior about. It was, in other words, no fun at all. So as we entered the Reagan ‘80s, the warming theory took over. We were supposed to have exhausted earth’s oil supplies by the 1980s. Scientists used computer models to show us that the age of fossil fuels was at an end. But Ronald Reagan (that idiot!) told us we were “literally floating on a sea of oil” and we careened into Reagan’s supply-side driven economic revival with our cars and trucks roaring.  The Left coalesced around the certitude that even if we still had oil, it must be killing us, and it was, we were told, killing us by destroying the ozone layer (early global-warming ‘languaging’) and if we didn’t stop driving cars and trucks, we’d all die. It was not long before the Left realized that not only cars and trucks might kill us, but also factories! Suddenly the invidious association between death by ozone depletion and Reagan’s hateful brand of runaway capitalism became clear! Even if Reagan didn’t start a nuclear war and destroy as all that way, he’d kill us off by letting the economy rip while placing no constraints on the mechanisms of wealth and industry…the horror; the horror.

The planet has been about to run out of oil since at least 1948--

The planet has been about to run out of oil since at least 1948!

And so we emerged as a popular culture from the impending ice age, (somewhat prematurely, as we’ll argue shortly) and marched numbly into the crucible of man-made global warming…a concept beloved of the Left because it villainized success, big business, industry, manufacturing, and jet travel. (Thus the never-ending procession of cartoons and films featuring cute animated animals battling these evil entities to save the planet.) The problem was, in abandoning the ice-age concept for the more politically useful notion of man-made warming, the Leftist Establishment moved our culture away from scientific plausibility and nearer to absurdity. But nobody noticed for quite some time.

Climate change: immune to rebuttal!


The climate-salvation lobby is experiencing some difficulties as we head into 2014 (with all that darned ice and snow all over the place) deciding whether to fight for the preservation of the global warming mythos, or elide into the more facile realm of “climate change,” which seems so conveniently defensible by comparison. As this screed is committed to cyberspace, the factions in favor of “climate change” are on the indisputable ascent.  The quickest way to satisfy yourself in this regard is to pick up a newspaper or turn on a TV newscast, or punch up your favorite online news page. Unless you are cheating by restricting your sources to the far right, you will note that climate change is almost exclusively in use, while the choice of adjectival intensifiers is not yet entirely settled.


Of course the fact that it cannot be effectively rebutted is the chief allure of the term—it being patently impossible to prove that climate change doesn’t happen. If it rained yesterday but snowed today, that’s climate change, right? And any time these changes seem even mootably anomalous, why, you have extreme climate change!  There is no doubt that the scientific climate salvagers can labor beneath such a rubric without fear of repudiation. But another problem attaches itself to this otherwise convenient term—and that problem is scientific. (“Isn’t that ironic—don’t you think?”)

Who is Karl Popper?

imagespoppSir Karl Raimund Popper was an Austrian, transplanted to England, who is widely esteemed the greatest scientific philosopher of the 20th century. One of Popper’s greatest achievements ramified from his stand against classical induction in scientific inquiry. Without getting detailed (and because we assume most of our beloved readers know this already), let it simply be stated that induction is an inherently inefficient means of reaching conclusions. The Scottish philosopher David Hume dismissed it as impossible to justify except inductively, which reasoning he denounced as (rather obviously) circular. But this is precisely the kind of “logic” that must be applied in any defense of “climate change,” and any such defense is therefore unscientific. Here’s why.

Popper offered the scientific method of empirical falsification as a preferable substitute for inductive reasoning. An hypothesis is deemed falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of observable events that would prove the hypothesis to be false. Example: If you hypothesize that all cows have spots, it qualifies as a scientific hypothesis (more or less) precisely because it can be falsified. All anybody has to do, obviously, is locate a cow that has no spots, and your hypothesis is disproved…it is falsified.  Plainly, not every falsifiable hypotheses can be proved false, thus the hypotheses that resist falsification may be considered solid science. (If nobody, ever, anywhere, were able to find a non-spotted cow, your theory that all cows are spotted would begin to look viable.)  It is almost universally held in the wake of Popper’s contribution that true science must be falsifiable.


Single stupidest consciousness-raising attempt in graphic history?

Okay, so you know where this ends up, don’t you! There is absolutely no way to “falsify” a theory that claims any climactic shift or variation from the norm to be “Global Warming,” and this becomes doubly obvious when one substitutes the absurd term, “climate change,” which could only be falsified if there weren’t any. And the warm lobby has routinely committed the cardinal scientific sin of rationalizing its way around evident falsification by inventing ad hoc methods of evading the verdict. That’s why we now have extreme climate change (the concept, that is, not the actual weather). It’s the only reason for the shift.

Global winter? 

Do you realize that the lowest temperature ever recorded on earth was just registered? Yup—it was 135.8 degrees (Fahrenheit) below zero, and this is the least warm our planet has ever been anywhere in meteorological history. The record was established in Antarctica, even as the Left continues to warn us of polar melting. In reality, it seems fairly obvious that the planet is getting colder—at least that’s what the amalgam of empirical evidence suggests.  And some scientists are actually beginning to risk professional life and limb by taking note of this evidence.

German scientists are predicting global cooling lasting throughout this century. Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy insist that, “Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870.” (The de Vries cycle, just in case you’re not up on this, is a 200 year solar cycle.)  The scientists also studied the 65-year Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle and concluded that global warming since 1870 has been mainly the result of the interaction of these factors, just as global cooling is, currently.

Easterbrook--not just your average denier!

Easterbrook–not just your average denier!

Or as Donald J. Easterbrook, the courageous (or simply reckless?) Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western University Bellingham prefers to put it, “Global warming is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.”

Professor Lockwood--another pest!

Professor Lockwood–another pest!

Professor Mike Lockwood, a leading British scientist at Reading University warns that the current rate of decline in solar activity may usher in a second “little ice age.” Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more precipitately than at any time in the last 10,000 years after a period of unusually intense activity. He believes, in other words, that global heating or cooling has a lot to do with how hot the sun is—now there’s a weird theory!

And of course it goes without saying that the UN (in the form of the IPCC) and the self-appointed (although government funded) climate saviors in many major universities around the world are busily disseminating their learned insights as to how unprecedented global cooling, in actuality, represents further proof of unprecedented global warming. These arguments, you may safely suppose, will become the flapdoodle of preference among liberals of refinement, so studying them in advance may prepare you for what the college professors, attorneys, therapists, or cellar-dwelling pothead college drop-outs in your family will be expounding over Christmas dinner. On the other hand, the lower-brow among your liberal associates are likely to prefer the climate-change option. It is a matter of some passing interest (to us here in the WOOF cave anyway) that this bifurcation highlights a peculiarity of the liberal class system. Why is it that the more intellectually inclined liberals will, almost without exception, prefer the dumber of two dopey options?  But we digress. Those of us who recognize the actual environmental threat to this planet, namely the icy, bone-chilling onset of an unyielding, devastating, global winter, must do all we can to stave off this potentially catastrophic event.

How you can help save the planet:


WOOF believes that it is increasingly apparent, given the high quality of evidence presented by a growing number of internationally respected scientists, that the earth is entering another ice age. If you have reviewed the evidence presented above, or if you have personally checked into the available evidence and come to the obvious conclusions, you are probably asking yourself about now, “Gosh, what can I do to help prevent another ice age?” Fortunately, liberals have spent decades amassing detailed compendia of the most efficient means of stopping the next ice age in its tracks! Indeed, the solutions to global cooling are available online from numerous left-wing sources. Do you doubt us?

We suggest you double check our list by going to the website for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) because it offers a crisp, clear-cut list of all the possible solutions to our climate problem. So, in fairness, do most other leftist websites on this topic. Of course, the items listed are offered as monumental no-no’s—a rogues’ gallery of human-controlled phenomena that ostensibly cause global warming—but if there is any truth to these assertions, then the more enlightened view is clearly the contrary one:  These formerly vilified activities are in fact the very keys to our salvation! So, taking them one by one, here is what you can do to combat the coming Big Freeze:

save the planet

  • Carbon dioxide emissions from burning gasoline—an easy way to battle global cooling! If you own an SUV, budget a bit more for gasoline and leave it running in your driveway. If you are not fortunate enough to own an SUV, any automotive vehicle—even a motor scooter—will emit carbon dioxide. If every American ran a gas-powered motor for only two extra hours every day, global cooling could be delayed by at least a decade!
  • Emissions from fossil fuel burning factories and power plants—a tremendous source of planetary protection! Of course, few of us are so fortunate as to own our own factory, but you can let your congressperson and senators know that it’s time to remove all those counterproductive emissions controls with which our industries are saddled. And a great way to involve your kids could be having them stand outside coal burning power plants waving signs that say cute, amusing things, like “Thanks for smoking!”
  • Methane emissions from animals: Let’s face it, everybody loves animals! And while we can’t humanely undertake methods of getting them to defecate more prolifically, we can certainly help them to multiply and remain well fed! If zoning permits, consider buying your own cow.
  •  Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs):  These emissions are often called by their copyrighted DuPont name: Freon. And the wonderful thing about them is, they are readily available, often quite inexpensively, to the eviro-warrior on a budget. It doesn’t cost much to spray paint your fence, or turn your refrigerator and freezer to lower temperature settings! Why not stick an air conditioning unit in that unused room and crank it up, even though it’s winter! Remember, it’s going to get a whole lot colder if we don’t act now! Sadly, many of these CFCs, so vital to our planet’s survival, are being phased out of product lines that previously incorporated them. Luckily, according to the IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Ozone and Climate, there remain an estimated 5,791 kilotons of CFCs in existing products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosol cans, and so on…so check labels carefully and make sure you are arranging to emit genuine chlorofluorocarbons!


    With enough effort, global cooling can be halted!

And this concludes our discussion, Woofketeers—we here in the cave hope that we have provided a service, and if any should think otherwise, we will be happy to hear about it, as always. And in closing, please allow us to remind you that time, in our considered opinion, is running out for civilization unless we take prompt and powerful action to put the brakes on our planetary plunge into sub-zero temperatures! So help us strike back at global cooling, won’t you? And to stress the importance of taking action, let us leave you with these words from President Obama’s “Organizing for Action” website:

“Climate change is real—the stakes are too high for climate denial!”

tail shot

Immigration Legislation: A New Approach! (Why reformatting beats reform!)

In "Migrating Pain" forum on December 4, 2013 at 8:32 am

Besides depicting the last Mexican to successfully invade the United States militarily, this recruitment poster bears a message of considerable relevance to our latest proposal–bear with us!

You know ObamaCare is falling apart, right? And we told you it would, right? And you probably knew it would anyway, so let’s skip that for now—and the fact that John Forbes Kerry (who was in Vietnam before he was against it) has undertaken a disastrous diplomatic initiative with the Iranian government aimed at enabling it to perfect nuclear weapons for exportation to terror groups worldwide as well as for domestic applications such as, say, the elimination of the state of Israel (of which Our Beloved Helmsman and his Secretary of Defense are notoriously unfond) has certainly gained your notice—and besides, we just finished discussing that with you. And, oh…glamorous Hollywood stars are having their breast enlargements reduced to keep abreast (sorry!) of the latest trends—did you notice that? If not, we just told you.

So, all that aside, we’ve decided to dredge up a topic that is not currently “hot” in the political arena—thus, of course, sacrificing hundreds of mouse clicks that we might have captured had we chosen to discuss, say, Miley Cyrus, Alec Baldwin, or Robert Ford, (the Mayor of Toronto, not the guy who shot Jesse James) or any other slow motion train wreck currently in the news…or the actual train wrecks for that matter. But you know what—that’s okay. We don’t need to scrabble for clickers, we need to keep our loyal cadre of supporters aware of what’s really important out there…of what’s actually bubbling beneath the putrescent surface of the febrile swamplands of the socialist left. And that leads us to this morning’s topic—immigration! Or rather, as it is more popularly phrased nowadays, “immigration reform.”

Is reform irredeemable?


Reform always does well in focus groups, you see… any kind of reform; which goes a long way toward explaining why the Left can’t get enough of it. Most Americans scowl the moment anything so  ludicrously shatterpated as “legalization of illegal immigrants” gets mentioned to them—because even the contemporary American “likely voter” knows that he’d have to be out of his of generally distractable but not entirely disserviceable mind to go along with anything that daft. Heck, it would be almost as scatterbrained as voting for Obamacare. Twice.

What ought to be explained here for the less acute among us (and we are picking up some erstwhile Obama supporters as we march merrily along here at WOOF, so there are such among us—you know, constituents of that 40% of Americans obtuse enough to have favored Obamacare at its most popular) is that stamping conspicuously odious endeavors with the earmark of “reform” is a standard left-wing hornswoggle applied to any patent non-starter on the Democrat to-do list. Evidently, reform is a difficult concept to oppose!

reform1832So here it comes again, gentle readers, dusted off, ironed out, and slapped onto another essentially unsalable product, namely the sociocultural destruction of the nation that conquered the West, built the railways (but not the “intercontinental” one), bridged the waters, won its every war, erected the cities that scraped the skies, salvaged the world after destroying Hitler, and faced down the fiendish totalitarianism of Russian communism.  That would be us. And we did this all while maintaining an openhearted system of immigration that made this country the dream of every under-trodden European or Asian or African or Jewish or Hispanic or Latino pilgrim with the wherewithal to come here and the determination to remain—and to remain as what we all wished to be in those days. Americans.

But suddenly this process that built the wealthiest, mightiest, most admired, most God fearing, unapologetically freedom loving nation in the history of our planet, needs reform….immigration reform. It needs to tell the 28% of those strangers in our midst who have come here illegally (if the recent PEW poll is correct) that, hey, that’s okay today—because today we fully accept them anyhow, in fact we love them just the way they are. All that fuss and fulmination about meeting some woefully antiquated criteria for living among us based on some long-forgotten steam-age standards established by a bunch of long-since-decomposed (not to mention suspiciously Caucasoid) arbiters of a bygone commonweal—well, that’s all as obsolete as the buggy whip, decent health care and the heterosexual military, because, America demands reform!  

The Oberlin Female Moral Reform Society in session.

The Oberlin Female Moral Reform Society in session.

The magic of multiculturalism

Well, more accurately, Progressivism demands reform! Liberalism demands reform! And the countless newspapers, magazines, media broadcasters, TV anchor babblers, show-biz know-it-alls and all the professorial Maoists in our citadels of higher learning, all, as in one voice, as if by tumult, demand reform!  So make no mistake, Woofketeers, the idea that immigration reform has failed—that it has been shrugged aside and left to wither—is baloney.  It is very much alive!  Ask your kids if you doubt us—and what do they teach your kids about illegal immigration? They teach them it’s multiculturalism. And multiculturalism is good, just as Western culture is bigoted, Euro-centric, and built upon a junk heap of lies and injustices—the kinds of racist, greedy capitalistic abuses the multicultural influx will sweep from our land like a righteous broom. Got all that? It’s important to grasp, especially if you want to keep up with what your kids are learning in school.


Nyet, nyet, nyet, Number Three! Nyet, nyet nyet!

Let us, therefore, turn our thoughts to the current American drive for diversity and outreach that encompasses the flood of foreign-born “illegals” overwhelming our shores in these times–despite their lacking the funds, education, linguistic abilities (or inclination in many instances) to fit the American blueprint. Immigration reform will once again come to light as the next great transformative mechanism of the age of Obama, and as we ponder these rich veins of cultural influx, perhaps turning our thoughts to the beneficence of maintaining an invitingly porous southerly border, we find ourselves fixated on a specific time and place in our national history—yes—we find ourselves irresistibly drawn to that generative moment in the shaping of our national psyche with regard to such matters. We find ourselves remembering…..the Alamo.

Remember the Alamo? 


The whole problem with Mexico resulted from illegal immigration in Texas. In 1829– a result of the unchecked flow of U.S. immigrants into the territory, the Anglos wound up outnumbering native Spanish speakers by a considerable margin. First, Mexico sought to capitalize on this incursion by levying property taxes and increasing the existing tariffs on American imports. The American immigrants (and the wealthier Mexican merchants in the area) refused to meet these demands, so Mexico declared Texas closed to additional immigration, but they forgot to build a fence, so the immigration of Americans into the territory continued illegally.

Jim Bowie--just couldn't bring himself to evacuate.

Jim Bowie–just couldn’t bring himself to evacuate.

Mexico’s dictator, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, decided to make Texas Mexican by military subjugation. Stephen Austin responded by declaring Texas independent from Mexico. Santa Anna responded by marching into Texas and toward the first obstacle he perceived, namely the Alamo. Sam Houston knew perfectly well that there were not enough “Texians” available to defend the Alamo, so he sent Jim Bowie to evacuate the old mission, remove its artillery and blow it up. But Bowie, being Bowie, decided to stay and defend the place.  Duly, Santa Anna pulled up outside with 1,800 soldiers and laid siege to the garrison of 189 volunteers.

Fess and Buddy prepared to die for Texas, circa 1953.

Fess and Buddy, prepared to die for Texas, circa 1953.

And as every American school child used to know, (back when the image of Fess Parker and Buddy Epsen battling to their last breaths for Texas was graven into every young imagination) Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, along with 188 other defenders including Bowie, Travis, and James Rose—a friend of Crockett’s who was the nephew of James Madison. Not “Thimblerig,” though; the lovable con artist who teams up with Crockett in so many novels and films seems not to have existed.  Anyhow, the Alamo’s defenders delayed Santa Anna for 13 days and killed at least 600 of his soldiers, allowing Sam Houston’s forces to finish the Mexican army off at the subsequent Battle of San Jacinto, resulting in independence for the Republic of Texas in 1836.Unfortunately, strife with Mexico was not ended by Texas’s independence, partly because of continuing border disputes. Just as vexingly, California was teeming with settlers who wanted to play “The Texas Game” and win independence, which wasn’t going over well in Mexico. Following a Mexican attack on an American patrol, President Polk (a Democrat) declared war on Mexico—and after a series of military successes he imposed terms affirming the Rio Grande as a border between Mexico and Texas, and transferring California to the United States. Now, you might think that at face value this would represent a triumph for multiculturalism mightn’t you? In fact, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave us possession of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado—all of which thereupon benefited from massive infusions of settlers from a wide variety of mainly-European cultures, enriching those localities in numerous ways and promoting economic growth throughout–a clear case of immigration and cultural intermingling leading to unprecedented regional growth.

Yet, here we are, a mere 165 years later, and not everyone is pleased with the multicultural triumph that President Polk preferred to call Manifest Destiny [which concept is expertly explained here] . It is perfectly understandable that Mexican citizens see the economic (and social-service) advantages that exist on the American side of the border and seek to immigrate hither—who can blame them? This understandable desire becomes problematic only insofar as it is pursued without regard to the law. After all, we won the war with Mexico legally, and Mexico’s citizens should obtain green cards or citizenship legally—it’s only fair.

More than fair!

imagesCA2AGE4HBut we at WOOF want to be more than fair, especially when it comes to multicultural outreach. We realize that many Hispanic activists, as well as many loyal, albeit befuddled Americans of other ethnicities believe that justice demands the suspension of the legal process governing immigration—a logical absurdity, of course, but widely subscribed to, nonetheless. We understand that many extreme but influential Hispanic and Chicano organizations are overtly or at least furtively supportive of dispensing with immigration law and working toward Reconquista –the reconquest by infiltration of those territories that were part of Mexico before Texas gained independence and before the “Mexican Cession” which is a polite phrase from 1848, meaning surrender (although we did go so far as to pay Mexico 15 million dollars for the real estate).

But WOOF’s objection to the advocates of Reconquista is not that they wish to reverse history or abolish our laws—but rather that these organizations are racially biased, often calling for the ethnic cleansing of races within the territories they intend to reacquire who are not of La Rasa—“the race.”  Obviously, this is not at all multicultural.

“Absolutely not dead” –the Republican problem.


Priebus: “Doing nothing is not an option!”

Further, we have the complication of every Democrat and every RINO and (for reasons that remain unexplained), Marco Rubio, advocating “immigration reform,” which would mean the end of the American Republic as any recognizable semblance of the Founders’ vision, even as it would cede to the socialist left an automatic election-day nod from millions of previously illegal immigrants who would become (voting) beneficiaries of amnesty, should amnesty occur. Do you doubt that Republicans support this disfigurement of the electorate? Reince Priebus, who unlike the legendary “Thimblerig” seems to be a real person and who is, in any case, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in November that, “Something significant is going to happen…I don’t think doing nothing is an option. And I believe most people would agree that something significant needs to take place. Now what that is, I don’t get to make that decision,” to which WOOF adds, thanks be to a merciful Providence! (And why don’t RINOs like Priebus ever think “doing nothing is an option”?)

john and lindsey

When these two put their heads together, one never knows what zany antics may ensue!

There are, sad to say, numerous Republicans who will enthusiastically join the Democrat drive to enfranchise illegal aliens whose best understanding of our system is that the government should give them stuff (placing them, admittedly, on a par with a couple of successive generations of our native-born citizens and squarely in the mainstream of today’s Democrat Party). John McCain, naturally, is the most conspicuous and least coherent RINO to support “reform,” and his good friend Lindsey Graham has proven an enthusiastic “bipartisan” as well. But the House is where such legislation could be stopped, were it not for the fact that a growing number of House Republicans think “reform” is a great idea, including Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla), David Valadao, R-Calif), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

House Speaker John Boehner insisted this past November that immigration reform is “absolutely not” dead. Boehner reported himself “encouraged” by President Obama’s assurances that he was amenable to the GOP’s idea of addressing immigration reforms in a series of smaller bills. Well, duh! When it comes to “boiling the frog” through a series of subtle legislative steps, who is more approving or adept than the Fabianist Left?


A choice, not an echo!

Once again we see the irrelevance of the mainstream Republican party on display. Why subscribe to a party that listens to the Democrats’ socialist agenda and than says either “us too!” or else, “we want the same thing, only it should happen slower”?  Not that there isn’t precedent for Republicans opposing the Mexican Cession. Lincoln opposed the war with Mexico, although, to be precisely factual, he was a Whig at the time. But we have today a Republican party that opposes nothing except insofar as it can be seen to have tweaked or enhanced or decelerated it prior to stringing along with it. Why bother? So the probable outcome of this increasingly evident phenomenon—the increasingly evident transition of Republicans from an opposition party into a tag-along troop—would seem to be the eventual collapse of the GOP.  Just as the Whigs suddenly vanished in a puff of irrelevance, so will the party of Boehner, McCain and Cantor…unless the conservative remnant manages to stage a takeover (as Goldwater did in ’64 and Reagan in ’80), or unless the Republican alternative is one of such manifest distinctness and genius that it clearly represents a choice rather than an echo. Sadly, the Republican Party has no such plan—but luckily for everyone, WOOF does!

The Inspired Compromise

tinfoil dogPerhaps Reince Priebus was correct in asserting that “something significant needs to take place.” Perhaps the radical Hispanic and Chicano groups can be cajoled into realizing that the broadest ambitions of Reconquista are not achievable. Republicans, at the same time, should have their attention directed to the probability that an authentically humanitarian and quasi-apologetic (thus admirably humble) gesture toward Mexico will capture the public imagination—especially the liberal imagination, which is inherently self-flagellating— and put an end to complaints about imperialist tyranny and cultural usurpation for at least a century. It will also evince such sweep, grandeur and creative boldness that any Liberals who oppose it will appear to be incorrigible racists and knavish jingo-ists. It will, simultaneously, save the Republican brand from going the way of all second-rate knock-offs…except Pepsi, that is, which is still around. But a lot of people really like Pepsi, so there’s no accounting for taste.

Not a required signer.

Not a required signer.

So here’s the plan: An agreement will be signed by all interested parties, including the Mexican government, the United States, all supportive Hispanic-rights organizations and the usual number of inapposite dignitaries from France, Austria, and of course the Hague just to class things up, and maybe Bono (the U-2 dude, not Cher)  if he’s available. The agreement having passed through the advise-and-consent process in the United States Senate and having won ratification by more than the two-thirds majority required by Article II section 2 of the Constitution because none of the Senators wanted to be called racists or jingoists, the Government of Mexico and all signatory parties will freely acknowledge that Mexico has no further territorial claims upon any portion of the United States or its protectorates, and will abide in perpetuity by the new borders delineated in the treaty.  A “right of return” will be established, meaning that any illegal aliens of Mexican origin apprehended within the United States who are not obliged to stand trial in the United States will be repatriated to Mexico with the full consent and assistance of the Mexican government.

imagesCAP33MZVA fence will be constructed along the entire length of the newly delineated border, costs for which will be absorbed by the United States while the majority of the labor will be supplied by verifiably illegal aliens who will be reimbursed for their efforts by a one-time cash payout as particularized in the treaty, or alternatively by being awarded American citizenship. Those who receive the substantial one-time-only cash reimbursement will be required to return to Mexico. Mexico will agree that any American citizens whose places of residence may fall within territory newly ceded to Mexico will be offered Mexican citizenship or permanent resident status. And, of course, to paraphrase Thomas Magnum, we know what you’re thinking. What on earth would induce Mexico to enter into such an arrangement with the United States—what could we possibly offer them that would make all of this worth their while? And the answer is simple, brilliant, and irresistible.

We will offer them California. They can have the entire state, and we’ll even absorb the former state’s debt in the process. Mexico will inherit approximately 38,041,430 new residents, all of whom, who receive taxable income, will be paying taxes to Ciudad de Mexico. Moreover, California likes to describe itself as the 9th largest economy in the world—which is true in a sense—just as it is true that the Titanic was the largest ship afloat, even as it was sinking. With its debt forgiven, however, the Californian economy will be a boon to the peoples of Mexico—a powerful engine of productivity beyond the scope of their wildest imaginings… and think of the catharsis American liberals will uniformly experience, unburdening themselves of so much atavistic guilt!

Bearing the sacrifice…

imagesCAEGXBQ6The only down side for the United States, besides the obvious sacrifice of so many tax paying citizens and corporations, will be the loss of our beloved entertainment industry, much of which will either reconfigure itself in other locations or adapt to making films in Spanish, and, perhaps even more tragically, the loss of those mighty centers of higher education such as University of California Berkeley that have contributed so much to our national character over the past decades, and perhaps most painfully the loss of those hugely influential “take all” Electoral College votes—all 55 of them. Yes, it will be difficult for America to continue without those 55 electoral votes popping up on our TV screens every four years—on that deep blue background—but in the interest of fair play for Mexico, WOOF believes all true Americans will unite and shoulder the burden bravely.

Won’t you help spread our vision? 


The way forward seems simple, dear readers. Mexico needs California more than we do, and giving it to them in exchange for a few comparatively lambent demands is simply the right thing to do. Not Texas, though, they can’t have Texas, or Utah, or Arizona. They can’t even have Nevada or Colorado. But the idea of sacrificing California in the interest of multicultural outreach and the sheer poesy of an intensely introspective national ablution achieved thereby is so noble—it seems irresistible, don’t you think? If we can simply make the plan known to a few men and women of vision and good conscience in Washington—a new age could dawn for both Mexico and the United States. Won’t you help pass this plan along to your Senator or Congressperson? We here at WOOF ask no credit or attribution, we only seek to be helpful. And yes, we feel that this is our best idea since the time we suggested that Darfur salvage itself by invoking protections vouchsafed it under the Anglo-Egyptian concordat of 1916 and declare itself a British Colony—but the fools wouldn’t listen!  Won’t you help us get the people to listen now?  About the California idea, we mean. That whole Darfur thing just didn’t work out.

woof outreach map




WOOF salutes our very first Moldovan clicker who checked in on the 4th of December, 2013. It is with great pleasure that we welcome Moldova to our site, and here’s to many more viewers in Moldova joining our international readership! Let’s all remember to keep August 27 circled on our calendars as Moldovan Independence Day–the date when in 1991 this great nation threw off the yoke of Soviet oppression following the failure of an attempted Soviet coup and declared itself a free republic! WOOF salutes you, Moldova, and invites your citizens to peruse our quasi-demented ravings free of charge, any time! Cu placere!


Mihai Eminescu, national poet of Moldova.

%d bloggers like this: