Supercilious Emperor Cuomo may not like it, but his popularity is hitting bottom, and increasingly his big government, left-wing policies are attracting fierce criticism. Among those critics: ME! Check out my latest article. This one focuses on New York State's hostility to natural gas production and utilization, and the costs borne by New Yorkers because of the Cuomo administration's eco-radicalism. The article appears in the New York Post. In case you're keeping track, that's a major coup for the WaddyIsRight commentating empire... I'm very grateful to the Post for the opportunity, and trust me when I say that Cuomo and his ilk haven't heard the last from me.
https://nypost.com/2019/02/21/the-price-of-cuomos-war-on-natural-gas-is-only-starting-to-kick-in/
And here's an important story about election integrity by one of my colleagues over at American Greatness:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/02/22/illegal_ballot_harvesting_a_looming_issue_in_arizona_.html
Lastly, don't you love it when your liberal friends (if such a word applies) remind you for the thousandth time that the Left believes in "facts" and conservatives are just knuckle-dragging bigots? Well, this study suggests that -- miracle of miracles! -- liberals can be fooled by "fake news" just as easily as conservatives. Curious, no?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/liberals-and-conservatives-are-both-susceptible-to-fake-news-but-for-different-reasons/?fbclid=IwAR3GbaaBaY_Hel6Hp_oyiXlNarn5JzlVwC_VQ7Xwe2mY_RD1JqdAYkTLt6M&sf208193564=1&utm_campaign=SciAm_&utm_content=organic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
Dr. Waddy: Many, many congrats! Love the NY Post - its the voice of the real America in an island of leftist bigotry which is the home, nonetheless, of myriad down to earth people. They showed what they had on Sept. 11 and I'll always be in awe of them for it. That you are being read by them is a distinct benefit to them, all of us and a well earned honor for you.
ReplyDeleteI think Prince Andrew is probably well aware of the now proven benefits of natural gas and that his obvious radical intent to suppress the use of it in his fief is based in his certainty that the defeat of his left's latest crusade to take us on yet another hellish journey toward an unattainable perfect world, via the environmental route this time, would result from allowing natural gas to redeem us. Unfettered totalitarian ecological dominance by a successful radical left would of course, by institutionalizing presumptuous Marxist administration, open the door for complete elite control of the entirety of our lives. An Andrew now gone wild is providing us, even now, a telling preview of this verity and though only NY unfortunates are subject to it today, the rest of the real America needs to beware. Cuomo is reckless but cooler heads have shared his intentions for a long time and they have the entire country in their sights (as does even Duke Cuomo, comically perhaps).
Thanx for your statement of intent to continue to take this profoundly arrogant and undemocratic man, who brings shame beyond measure on our state, to continuing task.
Dr. Waddy: I think its true that many conservatives have an enervating fear of being labeled "racist" or any other of a potentially endless list of leftist arrogated "outrages", because they know they can have really onerous consequences, especially due to the assured support of the thoroughly bigoted MSM.
ReplyDeleteIt takes guts to stand up to it these days and those who urge defiance must exercise principled empathy with those in the very trenches upon whom they urge it. One way to do this is to suggest tactics which work against presumptuous leftist totalitarians.
One I favor is to demand of anyone or any group levelling such accusations a soundly worded and reasoned definition of the "ism or isms" of which they indict those who criticize their highly suspect support for tactics such as "early voting" and "ballot harvesting". To ascribe good will to obvious Dem support for such innovations is to invest in the Dems a measure of trust they have forfeited for decades since their '70's takeover by those determined to fundamentally transform this country, no matter how discredited that intention is by history and common sense. Simply put, they would never support such measures if they did not see them as to their decisive advantage ( Eg. Martha McSally's eventual loss though I rejoice at her eventual appointment to the Senate) My experience is that leftists are often emotionally threatened by such resistance to their indisputable justice and that they come apart when challenged so; I have experienced this first hand. They are not used to having to justify their views, since they think them and have experienced widespread confirmation of this, to be self evident and excused from substantial and (God forbid) empirical requirements.
Further, in thinking of disapproval of their views, conservatives need always be aggressive in questioning the credibility of those who attack them with smug radical abandon. Put them on the defensive, rather than meekly surrendering to them the moral high ground! After all, who are these people who so confidently declare our injustice? From what do they derive their moral authority? Let's hear their answers and be sure therein of the propriety of our questioning of them!
Dr. Waddy: Bigotry is a term arrogantly and presumptuously misused by the left. A plausible definition of the word is the narrow minded, blind and intolerant devotion to a certain opinion, creed or point of view. Why that is a fundamental policy for leftists, who either purposely or reflexively excoriate those who disagree with,or worse, actively oppose them. They regard such obstinacy as moral turpitude, since their justice is to them unchallengeable. The bigoted shoe fits them well, they wear it with abandon and in doing so forfeit moral authority to accuse any others of the fault.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the kind words, Sir. I don't read the NY Post myself (or any newspaper, for that matter), but I know the sorts of stories that get picked up by online aggregators like RealClearPolitics, and the Post is very much in the mix. I'm flattered to be included in their pages, therefore.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the importance of standing up to leftist bullies. The best defense is always a good offense. Put the lefties on their heels, and we'll be far better off. Unfortunately, though, much of the media constitutes a monologue rather than a dialogue. Liberals can often hurl their charges of "Racism!" and the like without any fear that their claims will be subjected to critical examination or (heaven forbid) a demand for positive proof. That's why I continue to believe that it's crucial to deny the Left outright domination of the lofty heights of the news media. Easier said than done, of course.
Dr. Waddy: Without the Internet we would probably now live in a world in which information dissemination and exchange would be tightly controlled by those who have taken the MSM to its present disgraceful state. Totalitarian government would be the certain result. But the promise of freedom incorporated in the incalculably important and probably assured evolution of this electronic medium is the eventual answer, I think, to the onerous influence of the MSM. An institution as fundamentally democratic as this development, which may well have a salubrious effect equal to that of the printing press on human well being, is the antithesis of the corrupt and unprincipled MSM.
ReplyDeleteHmm. An intriguing analysis, Jack, but I'm not sure I agree. Did the printing press really have a "salubrious effect" on mankind? It gave untold millions access to printed information, yes, but what KIND of printed information? Usually, I would suspect, information of the biased and/or polemical sort. How many of the horrors of the 18th-20th centuries were, in fact, the product of the "new" force of public opinion and the ability of manipulative leaders to indoctrinate the masses? I see the internet in the same light. Sure, it has the capacity to spread enlightenment, but, human nature being what it is, it seems to spread a lot more porn and disinformation than virtue and wisdom... Plus, I think there is quite a bit of evidence that the world, after turning towards democracy and freedom in the first decades after the Cold War, is beginning to rediscover the charms of authoritarianism. So, in short, I'm not persuaded that the internet portends the positive changes that you suggest. Seems to me that the "human material" that history has to work with is as flawed as ever.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Good points - well taken and well supported. I gladly defer to your professional expertise on Western Civilization and owe your opinion better informed than mine. I would note that the Enlightenment manifested a great increase in the consumption of both fiction and nonfiction enabled in large part by advances in publishing technology. Coincident with this was an improvement in human material well being unimaginable before the printing press. Yet, as you point out, it was also a time when calamity on an unprecedented scale was purposefully enacted by leaders armed with modern organs of information and, I would suggest, inspired by perversions of the early Enlightenment, pioneered by Rousseau and brought to tragic realization by Marx and Stalin. Could the Internet be subverted by totalitarians? It is credible to think it possible. Perhaps there might be some fell consolation in the certainty that the MSM would also founder under the deluge.
ReplyDeleteAh, but would it? Ha! I rather suspect that the Jim Acostas of the world would learn to adapt very quickly if authoritarian ever took root, but who can say for sure? I totally agree about the advance of "human material well being," by the way. There's no denying that our progress on that score has been continuous over the last several hundred years. It's the "inner" life of morals and spirit that I believe is stuck in neutral. Our power over nature, moreover, is a mixed blessing, as you're well aware. You would think that the rise of science would make increasingly untenable ideas that are counter-factual, but a quick perusal of the internet (or broadcast news) would render this theory problematic. My take: mankind's salvation will oome in the hereafter, if it comes at all. Here on earth we'll just be muddling along -- but even the muddling has its charms!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Rich food for thought and, again, well said. The Greeks ascribed many shortcomings like jealousy and vindictiveness to their deities; if they were right, even an afterlife might be plagued. I liked the Star Trek episode where they encountered the Organians, a very advanced civilization which had, because they were disturbed by corporal sanctions and limitations, actually abandoned their bodies to live lives of pure thought. Now that's an "Enlightenment" for you. I think the longer a religion has existed and has been subject to exhaustive introspection, criticism and evolution motivated by recognition of past mistakes, the more credible its message becomes. Its one of the main reasons I am a Christian believer. That and the very apparent truth that the Universe presents us plausible evidence of a supreme intelligence probably beyond human comprehension which does maintain and communicate to us a moral order, together with science's probable discovery of physical realities beyond explanation by traditional physics, very, very strongly suggests to me that a higher plane of existence is in store for us. This life, if we are lucky enough to live in civilized countries in which material progress has come apace, is a blessing indeed but I agree with you that we suffer much from moral and spiritual degradation. I was asked by a Scottish man if I favored tighter gun control in the U.S. I said no; I believe gun violence in our country to be the product of a morally and spiritually compromised society which has recklessly allowed relativism and cynicism to infect both vital spheres. Our very foundations in those respects have been subjected to an onslaught which should shock us beyond measure. That we appear to be indifferent encourages those who contemplate self indulgent evil to think themselves justified and after commission, excused! That the insane gun violence we see now did not occur in the '50's, when guns were far more easily available and when the "anything goes" '60's were still nigh, stands as one piece of very telling evidence. The radical left, in having fostered incalculable wrong in pursuing the chimera of human perfection ,lends much credibility to the notion that it is unattainable in this life. `
ReplyDeleteHow can I take issue with an erudite analysis that is equal parts Christianity and Star Trek? Ha! I don't mean to mock you. I truly am in awe. I didn't know you were a Trekkie. I should have guessed, though. You're a man of many parts.
ReplyDeleteGood point that any correlation between gun control and low rates of violent crime is sketchy at best. In the American case, it's almost totally absent. That won't deter the true believers, of course.
I'm a Christian too, although I must admit I find it hard to explain why in strictly rational terms. Religion, it seems to me, transcends reason. From a purely pragmatic perspective, though, the best reason to be a person of faith may be that the alternative is to be a person without it. And what does one have to gain by that???
Dr. Waddy: Its a fearful position to be in, I think. I fear God's wrath for my misdeeds and believe it directed in just ways.
ReplyDeleteI was out at sea during Star Trek's initial run and only experienced it in reruns. It was cheesy in alot of ways but it did have its good times. I think TV's greatest moment ever was when Spock bade the computer calculate Pi; it drove an alien invading the computer to madness and retreat. They actually assumed the audience knew about Pi; good for them.
Its easy to have accumulated, if only by osmosis, many parts in 71 years. And I am very grateful for any analysis of my expression as erudite; I glory in any interaction with those deserving of that evaluation.
Jack, you deserve every accolade!
ReplyDeleteI agree: the original Star Trek was downright "cheesy". It's somewhat painful to watch it now. Have you seen the movies and the various reboots? I'm a fan of the latest iteration: "Star Trek: Discovery". It's accessorized with some leftist touches, as you might imagine, but it's still very entertaining.
Dr. Waddy: I've lost track of the various contemporary Star Trek reprises, both on TV and in film. But I greatly admired the initial Star Trek movie for recreating, but with graceful restraint, with an absence of overdone nostalgia,the show, very much. In the original TV program, I think "The Trouble with Tribbles", "Apollo" and the Organian episodes are imaginative and engaging classics, as long as you forgive the obvious absurdities (such as settings virtually devoid of equipment and instrumentation, on a ship, no less). I hate to admit it but the 1965 style political correctness (TV always seemed to lag behind then) sometimes shown, seems quaint now .
ReplyDeleteJack, I've enjoyed all the Star Trek movies and series, despite the PC nonsense. (The notion that they've abolished money and thus greed is particularly rich.) You might want to re-watch the very last episode of the original series. It explores the horrors which ensue when women overreach the bounds of nature and covet command roles in Starfleet. A real think piece!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I'll check that out. In about 1966 I first read about the feminist movement and was in favor of it from what I saw. It was only later, when as a male librarian I was given to understand I was unwelcome in the library profession unless I toadied that I reacted. It was assumed that because I was a man I had predictable prejudices. This - from women who would tolerate not the slightest hint of stereotyping of them. That obvious unadulterated hate and championing of their flagship issue, abortion on demand, inspires my political opposition to the radicals in that movement.
ReplyDelete