Subscription

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Time for a Cold One?

 


Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show, as per usual, covers more ground than a cheetah running at top speed!  In terms of current events, we discuss the state of the race for president, including the significance of early voting data, the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, and the horrifying prospects for court-packing and the deconstruction of American democracy if the Dems win the White House and the Senate.  Eek!


In terms of history, Brian and I cover the rationale and consequences of Prohibition, the Italian invasion of Greece in October 1940 and the Italian-American perspective on WWII, and the mutiny in the German Navy in October 1918 that foreshadowed the collapse of the Second Reich.


It's all happening in this week's show.  Tune in today!


https://wlea.net/newsmaker-october-28-2020-dr-nick-waddy/

9 comments:

  1. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Read an interesting comment on the Barrett confirmation today. It said: far from being a consummate injustice, this confirmation went as they should go: her judicial qualifications were considered and they were found solid. You know, the left reflexively presumes that "a different set of rules" obtain for certain groups and that this WRONG, oh so WRONG! But when it comes to the Scotus nominees of conservative Presidents,oh then its ok.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Well, ACB must've been squeaky clean because ya know Schumer had the muck rake out and he couldn't find diddly!Of course,to his ilk, the fact that a President whose tenure cannot be endured nominated her condemns any Trump nominee; the President could have nominated a semi divine combo of the statue of justice, the goddess Athena and the muses one and all, all in one miraculous being and the Dems would have cried foul! When was the last time an appreciable number of Dems supported a Republican nominated Scotus candidate? But the historic, the exalted, the sainted RBG got GOP votes didn't she? This was a power play right out of your Dems "elections have consequences", realpolitik playbook. You Dems don't like it? Do something about it IF YOU CAN! You wanted all out political civil war? OK you've got it now!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Waddy from Jack: My family in my great grandparents day was strongly affected by powerful drinking.In the very early 1900's Buffalo was a cold,hard working town where the guys, mostly, got through the 12 hour day knowing the beer joint was nigh. But the wives and kids didn't have that and if the old man was a nasty souse they were in for it when he reeled home. I experienced just the tail end of that era in a big old steel plant in the '60's. No wonder women were in the forefront of the prohibition movement. But it just couldn't be; perhaps the Prohibition era bought some time for technology and the economy to develop to the point where the reality of"you work until you're too old to work or live" was at least somewhat ameliorated. I know it is now; we have long retirements now and so many of those people didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jack, ACB was a model of professionalism...and yet not a single Democrat voted to confirm her. That's outrageous, and it tells you everything you need to know about how low the Democrats, and our democracy, have sunk.

    Hmm. You think harsh working conditions explain the rampant alcoholism of the industrial era, Jack? I dunno. That smacks of excuse-making to me. After all, if your life is hard, alcohol isn't the answer! It's not a rational response to long days on the factory floor or anything else. Plus, I doubt that drunkenness was a universal among working men. No, I see it as a moral failing -- not as a symptom of the class struggle or as a "disease". Call me heartless... Really, go ahead. It's been done before. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr.Waddy from Jack: OK, I'll call you heartless but I don't mean it. Naw, I'll stick by my view; I saw that kind of life first hand. In the early 1900s drinking was widely expected and even lauded among blue collar men; their morals were not outraged. When it got really bad was when you were stuck in that life or when you got old enough that hauling your ass out of bed on a Buffalo January morning "ta go down ta da plant"was almost unendurable. Alcohol delivered them to a better place if only for a little while.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jack, isn't alcohol a depressant? Arguably, it takes people from a bad place...to a worse place. I don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Yeah,they knew if they over did it that they would feel even worse but the temporary feeling that everything was ok, they craved that. Plus there was the cameraderie of the saloon and if the old lady was waiting at home wit da rolling pin or cast iron pan ready to swing, it gave them something to brace them. Life itself was a pretty fearful thing back then. My experiences as a Navy enlisted man,a steel worker and a corrections worker lead me to believe that drinking is almost ubiquitous among people in stressful blue collar jobs



    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr. Waddy from Jack: I could we that there was a culture, in which drinking was a key part, around that plant and those who worked it. It was a way of life and drinking was a vital element of it. The early 1900s? Consider the old comic strip "Bringing up Father". My father said it was very realistic. Jiggs was a hod carrier who had made it rich but he couldn't stay away from Dinty Moore's joint no matter the beating which awaited him at home from,perhaps understandably,
    vindictive Maggie with her rolling pin and gimlet eye!

    ReplyDelete
  9. No doubt you're right about the culture of drinking, Jack. It still exists in some quarters, perhaps especially working class quarters? This is why only blue bloods like you and me should be allowed to vote!?!!

    ReplyDelete