Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show features an analysis of the tragic marriage between Prince Charles and Princess Diana, as well as some commiseration with the royals in general, who face so many challenges and frustrations. In addition, in our "This Day in History" segment, Brian and I consider the Cold War context of U.S. involvement in Somalia, the security of Soviet nukes at the end of the Cold War, the legacy of the Beatles, and the paradox of so many "anti-establishment" types now controlling the establishment.
When we get around to current events, we focus on the ongoing legal challenges to the 2020 election, including the new and probably decisive case brought by the state of Texas. Buckle up! Election 2.0 may soon be held in the chambers of SCOTUS.
Tune in and be informed!
https://wlea.net/newsmaker-december-9-2020-dr-nick-waddy/
***
And check out these great articles:
And why, you may well ask, are so few questions being asked about non-citizen voting in 2020, when it was THE big issue on everyone's lips in 2016?
Dr.Waddy from Jack: I did live through the astonishing rise of the Beatles and it was quite an experience. Their undeniablely transformative influence on the culture and of all things,politics,was all the more astounding when you consider what Paul once said: "all we are is a great little band, that's all".
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Here were some factors which enabled this phenomenon: American popular music was at a nadir;aside from the Beach Boys, it was lackinging in creativity and is remembered today mostly as a curiosity. Especially with George Martin's fortuitous and brilliant guidance, they were immeasurably better than anything else in early '64.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack:They did precipitate an entirely unanticipated rush of attention to theretofore ignored British popular culture (we didn't even know they had a popular culture). "Swinging London", hirsute styles which would have gotten guys hounded down the hall in my 1963 high school; we boomers had never seen anything like it. And as always with we,promethean prophets which so many of us still think we are, the first such enlightened perception in human history. Why? Because for the first time we felt the power inherent in our prodigious numbers.Why, we thought we had grasped something new, profound and exalted! Actually it was all because our parents were so damned glad they survived WW2 that they well . . .
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack; (An after thought: JFK's assassination did create a national malaise which was ,for the impressionable young, much dispelled by Beatlemania.)
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: The Beatles were marvelously entertaining but essentially they were a frivolity. Their outlandish influence on our society and politics was a result of their deification by the vacuous boomers.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the insights from someone who, thanks to his generational position, "gets" the Beatles better than I do. But I still don't really understand: how did the Beatles defeat the post-JFK assassination malaise? How were they better than the other bands on offer at the time? Why do you think their "look", style, and philosophy had such wide appeal? I like the music, yeah, but why anyone would listen to what the Beatles had to say about anything other than music is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I think the British royalty is indispensable. They tried doing without it . . . . The British political system is a finely tuned and evolved process. It has afforded stability and a large measure of justice and high civilization to Britain and to the countries whose polities are informed by it.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: The Royalty , by embodying sovereignty, plays a vital role in this very successful system.The very process of historic interplay between the legislative and executive has enabled the development of a very beneficial balance which has created enlghtened institutions like the office of PM, gradually and without reckless radical imposition.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack:In it's ceremonial and public duties and exposure to a sometimes vicious MSM (which must at times be, ehh, trying) it embodies a sense of credible creditable traditional dignity, unity and confidence in the enduring soundness of the nation.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: As remember it: on Buffalo's big rock station,WKBW,we started hearing Beatle music in late fall,'63. By April, KB was playing one and sometimes two, straight hours of it! Well, they were really good and they kept getting better. They sang and played and displayed very attractive personalities.
ReplyDeleteO
Ll
Test w
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack:Their style was very much unlke anything we had heard before and in first two years they hit a very responsive chord in our blue collar city. Their music was one helluva lot of fun! Maybe that is why they helped dispel the malaise.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: It's not hyperbolic to say; those first two years they were AGLOW! I remember seeing Paul do Yesterday on Ed Sullivan and thinking "these guys can't do anything wrong". I walked up my dorm corridor freshman year and everyone was playing Rubber Soul.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: And when they went spiritual and pseudointellectual starting with Nowhere Man , they brought the yes, "woke" young college crowd with'em. And as if to discredit any doubt, they published the brilliant Revolver and finally Sg't Pepper (which threw Brian Wilson into a ten year emotional and creative funk).
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Their style? Again it was mostly "a laugh" to them but it became a uniform to us. Our debut on campus (where you still saw plenty of crew cuts and letter sweaters) coincided with their apparent intellectualization and motivated us to identify with them. Their relatively mild iconoclasm came in very handy when the time came to resist that pesky draft.
ReplyDeleteY
Dr.Waddy from Jack: By '69 the boomers had driven Joe College off campus and a collegiate ambience dating back to the '20s disappeared on many campuses. This fed boomer narcissism and self congratulation, with catastrophic consequences. Their absurd veneration of the, well, band was perhaps the catalyst.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Finally, well I wot! The Beatles' musical preeminence was well earned through tight harmonies, scintillating instrumentals, well tried experimentation eg. sitars, brilliant direction from George Martin and inspiring song writing from John and Paul (together that is; apart, their individual excesses found free and often unredeemable range) and of course, George! And there is an end to my blather.
ReplyDeleteJack, I'm an unabashed monarchist too, but even I must admit that the egoism and whining of some of the modern royals makes it hard to sustain the monarchy as an institution. For the drama to remain credible, the players have to play their parts. That's getting tricky, apparently. "Dignity" is in ever shorter supply.
ReplyDeleteJack, I thank you for this well-informed analysis of the Beatles. It's funny how much respect you have for them musically, and yet how suspicious you are of them culturally. I suppose there's no inherent contradiction there. An artist can be good at their "job" without being noble, wise, or even bearable as a human being. Do you think the Beatles were corrupted by their times, or vice versa? There's a head-scratcher!
Dr.Waddy from Jack: I think Paul, Ringo and George have been level headed guys who have lived generally positive lives. I think Lennon was a disdainful and unjustified cynical, yes,dreamer with a most unsavory and ultimately ironic regard for violent criminals. Tellingly, he has been embraced by the reflexively ionoclastic boomers. The meteoric rise of our Beatles gave us the first hint of our titanic numerical power, which we misinterpreted as righteous enlightenment and used to bring our country close to destruction.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to contemplate how Lennon's reputation might have changed, had he not been killed in 1980. Also, how his ideology might have changed!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack:That it would have changed is certain. His views were shallow and reflexive (eg "bagism"). They changed on a whim. His one constant was to sneer at a world which had afforded him much good fortune.
ReplyDelete