Friends, here at WaddyIsRight, we (meaning I) bring you the most hard-hitting news stories imaginable. We have our fingers (all ten of them) on the pulse of our fast-paced, interconnected world. Frankly, though, when the topic of conversation turns to China's manhood, I insist on keeping my hands to myself! I mean, ick -- those Chinese he-men are slippery and GROSS!
What am I talking about? Damned if I know! Oh, wait... I'm referring to this fascinating article, which reveals that Chinese authorities are insisting that media companies there cease to portray men in "girly" or effeminate ways. Moreover, pop culture should stress themes of "excellent Chinese traditional culture, revolutionary culture and advanced socialist culture". Hooray!
Setting aside the obvious attempt at propaganda and misinformation, consider how warped it is that so many Western politicians and media companies defer to communist China, which itself is increasingly living in a fantasy world of neo-Marxist self-congratulation. Consider how obscene it is that China, which clearly hasn't the slightest sympathy for "gay rights" and transgenderism, gets a pass from Western leftists. Above all, thank your lucky stars that, as far as we might be from a truly free and unbiased media and social media environment here in the States, at least we don't live under the constant supervision and micromanaging impulses of Marxist totalitarians. Yet.
In other news, here's a fascinating analysis of why some left-wing media outlets are really letting Biden have it over Afghanistan. "Buyer's remorse" is a good way to put it. Lefties never liked Biden in the first place. He was merely a means to an end. They nominated him for one reason only: they thought he could win. And he did "win". Mission accomplished. Now, though, they're saddled with him, and they don't even have a good understudy warming up in the bullpen. It's enough to make a progressive wail with grief! On the other hand, I don't believe for a second that media bigwigs feel guilty about helping Biden beat Trump in the first place. On the contrary, they feel chuffed about that!
Here are two detailed explorations of a theme I've been discussing a lot lately: Biden's polling slippage has major political implications. For one thing, it makes it significantly more likely that the Dems will get their comeuppance in 2022. The numbers don't lie! Losing the House is a near-certainty. Losing the Senate looks increasingly plausible, and that would turn Biden into even more of a lame duck than he already is.
The Supreme Court has left in place a controversial Texas abortion law. In itself, that's no big deal, but it could presage a reversal of Roe v. Wade. That would be a political seachange, and it would give the Left the chance to mount a comeback powered by sheer moral indignation (their speciality).
Mitch McConnell is waving off talk of impeaching "President" Joe Biden because of his mishandling of Afghanistan. I approve. Bad policy isn't grounds for impeachment. If it was, we would need to impeach EVERY Democrat in Congress, right? Hmm. Maybe that's not such a bad idea. IMPEACH SLEEPY JOE!!!
https://nypost.com/2021/09/01/sen-mitch-mcconnell-says-no-impeachment-of-biden-over-afghanistan/
We all know that tens of thousands of "unaccompanied minors" have been welcomed to the U.S. under the Biden Administration. In fact, if you're under 18, you more or less get automatic asylum status. What many people don't know is that, once these kids have been imported into the country, the Biden Administration loses almost all interest in them. They could be subjected to all sorts of abuse, and the less the Bidenists know about it, the better! If it were Trump in charge of this train wreck of an immigration policy, you better believe the media would be covering it non-stop. Instead...nothing!
Speaking of things the mainstream media won't cover, the violent crime wave in our deep blue cities doesn't interest them in the slightest. It doesn't serve the needs of their master narrative of Republican treachery and Bidenist brilliance, so...out it goes.
Chances of the voters in California removing Governor Gavin Newsom are slimming. That's a shame. It looks like those dyed-in-the-wool progressive multitudes out in Lala-land are rallying to their Virtue-Signaller-in-Chief. More's the pity!
Your favorite Demo-publican and mine, Liz Cheney, has been named Vice-Chair of Nancy Pelosi's "insurrection" committee. Enjoy the limelight, Liz! Your political career will soon be over.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rep-liz-cheney-jan-6-house-committee-pelosi/2021/09/02/id/1034745/
Europe is getting a little less welcoming in its attitude to American tourists, but there are still ways to see the sights on "the Continent". The U.S., by contrast, still prohibits European tourists from visiting "America, the Beautiful". How silly. The virus is EVERYWHERE, people! Get over it. Open those borders up -- to those who cross them legally, that is.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/italy-entry-requirements-us-tourists
Nick, it is 14 months from the election. I would agree that if the election was held this November versus next November, it would be hard for the Democrats to hold the House. But, the election is NEXT November, and things change. For one thing, Biden has a strong economy. GDP is up, unemployment is down, and inflation will ease dramatically when supply and demand align. Second, by next November, Afghanistan will be a memory, just like the Beirut bombing was a memory for Reagan. Third, SCOTUS just handed the Dems a major issue -- abortion. Abortion was a major issue in 2018 with the Kavanaugh confirmation and the Dems exceeded all expectations. The issue is set to play out similarly for next November. The TX law might fire up the base even more because it is so draconian -- no exception for rape or incest.
ReplyDeleteAs for buyer's remorse concerning Biden, even if that were so, the Dems have the best backup player in either party -- Pete Buttigieg. He ran a surprisingly strong campaign, served in the Middle East, is in charge of a high-profile government agency, is young, and is both the smartest and most articulate candidate of either side. So, I am not worried about the Dem bench, if they need one.
So what specific experience qualifies Mr. Buttigieg for the Office of Secretary of Transportation?
ReplyDeleteI suspect that he was appointed to that position because he is Gay, and not because he knows a lot about roads or railroads.
In any event, he probably has a lot of people around him that know a lot about transportation and related issues.
As such, anyone can be appointed to a high position without any experience in whatever position they hold.
Bottom line, is that the man is another token political appointee, and because he is Gay. But he is still not qualified for the position he holds because he has a background in it. He is certainly not a road engineer.
You can praise him to the sky, but he will never become president, and quite frankly his star will fade once he leaves federal government. Suspect he will return to state and local politics.
With regard to neo-Marxists, The United States of America is a perfect example of that not so new ideology at work. Our Leftist fools are unique in that many truly believe we can have a Marxist Dictatorship and a Constitutional Republic simultaneously. Ha! Not very funny.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: The left is fit to be tied about the Texas abortion law and Scotus' failure to be cowed by political correctness. Why Texas didn't play fair in its creative formulation of this statute! THIS(!!?? ) from the same bunch which found in "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution, a"right" to kill unborn humans for convenience. This, from the faction which has harbored and enabled in its midst a vicious rump advocating the pariahhood of one half of the human race and which celebrates ( celebrates!) and makes its flagship issue the free, willful, convenient and blithe murder of the unborn. 18 years from now, thousands of 18 year olds will enter into adulthood who would otherwise have been discarded in their time of complete innocence and helplessness, because of this courageous law and this true Scotus. Roe v Wade,a national disgrace, is bound for infamous reversal, thank God!
ReplyDeleteJACK I remember the case of an anti-abortion activist back in 2007 in Wichita, Kansas who killed the director of an abortion clinic there while said director was in his church. Must have been a real Liberal Church. Interesting (for want of a better word) that there are those who think it is okay to murder those who murder the unborn. In any event, the thinking that abortion was okay got started about 100 years ago with Margaret Sanger, as I recall. She can be credited with the seed of the idea. This has always been a moral and sin issue, but clearly many Christian Churches support abortion, and approve Gay orientation and other "progressive" ideas. Clearly, most Democrats have always been at the forefront of the pro-abortion movement.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is, that a great many of those "unaccompanied minors" from way south of the border will probably end up here in the drug business. The fact that the Mexican drug cartels are heavily involved in illegal immigration attests to this.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: PresidentReagan once said " there are no solutions ,only choices". Certainly that is true when it comes to the abortion issue. Pro choicers have chosen for the mother, to the many millions times proven deathly disadvantage of unborn humans. Pro lifers have chosen for fetuses, to the certain potential profound disadvantage of many mothers. It is an onerous choice. The US has enabled the pro choice view , with its deadly prejudices, in law. Females capable of conception are capable of thought and choice of conduct. Fetuses have no such capabilities but surely deserve the right to life, the violation of which brings the capital charge of homicide, enjoyed already by the born. A civilized land must choose to direct its legal power to the protection of the otherwise unprotected unborn human beings in its jurisdiction. And it can also direct extensive aid and consolation to those forced into pregnancy without enabling the denial of LIFE ITSElF to innocent unborn humans. This bizarre interlude, when our country shamefully abandoned the unborn, must and maybe now shall, join in the extinction, enacted by a progressively just civilization, of analogous periods of profound injustice in our history. It must!
ReplyDeleteRay from Jack: I didn't know Sanger helped to make this ghoulish practice fashionable and lightly regarded. I think its very true that many "progressives" blithely and reflexively support womens'rights even unto complete disregard of the rights' of the unborn (profoundly contrary to the will and believes of SO MANY women). Yes,women did not choose to be born female, with that sex's unavoidable potential reproductive responsibilities ( and I aver that males have responsibility for proven fatherhood too, though none so demanding as pregnancy and birth, but other often deadly duties which do not usually accrue to females). But fetuses DID NOT choose to be conceived. At some point we must assume adult responsibility for those duties afforded us by the miracle of life ltself! "Progressives" would relieve us of those individual responsibilities, regardless of the now proven social consequences of such presumptuousness. Neo Marxism would have us travel back to pre 1917 times before its consummate brand of airy dismissiveness of time proven principles commenced its catastrophic, subhuman, murderous reign in the 20th century. Together with the equally tota!itarian, equally savage Nazis, they forged a record which might convince all humans of their essential evil. After all, fetuses in the US have endured since '73 a holocaust fully numerically superior to that of those inefficient
ReplyDeleteBoche mechanics.
JACK Sanger SET THE STAGE for abortion rights with her birth control and planned parenthood programs. She died in 1966, as I recall, and must have been happy to see birth control pills become popular during that decade, which just happen to coincide with the Hippie Movement and all that.
ReplyDeleteRod, you say the Dems exceeded all expectations in 2018? Come on. They didn't even exceed YOUR expectations. Check the tape, man! ;)
ReplyDeletePete Buttigieg is your backup man? Uh, I think you might be skipping over your ACTUAL presidential understudy, Kam-Kam. I would love to hear how you plan to skip over her... I suppose if Biden can make it four years, then Pete can take it all in the 2024 primary. That's a big "if". Almost alone among Republicans, I actually expect Biden to serve out his term, so we'll see. As for Pete, I think he's hugely overrated, but that too remains to be seen -- if he even gets a chance at the brass ring.
Ray, lots of cabinet appointments are barely qualified for their positions. Nothing new there. You have to admit, though -- our highways are more gay- and trans-friendly than ever! He's doing his best.
As for the Texas law, this is just a warmup. It's the fate of Roe v. Wade that will determine the political temperature on abortion, not to mention the fate of many a fetus. Rod is right that lots of progressives will be incensed if Roe goes, but the practical effect will be minimal, since it's already next to impossible to get an abortion in many states. Again, purely politically, I've always found the abortion issue to be something of a wash. I doubt 2022 will be determined by it.
Can Western Civilization turn decisively in the direction of the right to life? Possibly. I mean, "follow the science", right? While the fetus may not have consciousness, the more we learn about it, the more miraculous and HUMAN in turns out to be. The radical pro-choice position, it seems to me, can only be sustained by dismissing/ignoring the moral and biological substance of the fetus. It's a complex, multi-layered issue, but I defy anyone to look at an image of a fetus, at whatever stage of development, and conclude, "Why, that's nothing at all!"
Lots of issues have become POLITICAL over the past few decades. The issue of abortion is medical and moral, and yet it became political. Climate change is another excellent example, promoted and propagandized by people with no degrees in environmental studies.
DeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Remember "Dr. Joycelen Elders, the first US Surgeon General chosen by the abortion celebrating Hillary in 1993? "These 'pro lifers' have to get over their love affair with the fetus". Uh huh! A Congressman in our area, confronted in public by a protestor carrying an actual aborted fetus, recoiled in horror. He had earlier said "we must not be judgemental" but his essential humanity had risen to the fore at that hideous sight. One would think Dr. Elders and her ilk would be thoroughly familiar with it and yet. . . . Dare I use the term sociopath for those who so blithely excuse or even celebrate this horrid choice, this fiendish act?That they are feted by our country's left wing brings into grave doubt its intentions in the ENTIRETY of public and private American life it strives to command. The 20th century provided a thorough test of such convictions in power and their monstrous nature is consummately confirmed thereby.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: If that left achieves over all of us the casual life or death choice, which it now advances and raucously celebrates in that blessedly shrinking area it still intimidates with its onslaught on powerless unborn humans(eg. our NY),how will it be with all of us?!If they can be that callous toward those who are inherently powerless (in the, by natural law, definitively nuturing haven of the womb) how will they be for those whom they have so long, so painfully, sought to chastise and reform?
ReplyDeleteGood point, Ray. We live in an age when EVERYTHING gets politicized. Were things really so different in your salad days, though, circa the 60s and 70s? You would know better than I... On abortion, pretty much everyone (in office) agreed that abortion should be illegal until the 1960s. Of course, "illegal" didn't always mean "impossible".
ReplyDeleteJack, I don't necessarily assume the monstrousness of everyone who supports abortion rights -- it is a complex issue -- but as always the easiest way to take a human life is to dehumanize the human in question. Lefties have gotten good at it, and to call it a "slippery slope" would be an understatement!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: You are right: there are people of very good will who consider it a regretably necessary right. Its the ones who use it for convenience or who, for the luvva... march in parades to celebrate it, who are in need of moral comeuppance, I think. And I think it characteristic of a historically proven murderous left to enthusiastically endorse it, as if it had nothing about it to give one pause.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with abortion is that no one wants to confront the ugliness of the choices facing the mother. The fetus survives if it can survive on its own and/or does not put the mother in danger. Before sole viability, there can be a period of time where the fetus can only live if the mother literally lets the fetus feed off of her. Of course, the fetus has no legal right to being able to feed off another person. If the courts mandate that the fetus has such as a right, then the fetus is being granted more rights than other humans beings, which would run counter to both the Constitution, and other non-religious values our country was founded on.
ReplyDeleteNo one really wants to stick with the solely legal elements of abortion. Most of the arguments break down to emotional questions of what "life" means versus questions of personal "rights" such as "my body, my life." When that happens you see such massive hypocrisy over GQP males claiming "my body, my life" in refusing vaccinations, but fine with having vigilantes going after women for wanting to argue "my body, my life" in being forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term.
Rod is right that the issues are vexing and reasonable people can see abortion differently. As for hypocrisy, though, there's plenty to go around. We all like "life" some of the time, and "rights" some of the time, and both when it suits us, and neither when our hackles are up. That's just the human condition.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the part about the fetus "feeding" on the mother, though. That's what all fetuses do. That's what all life does, come to think of it. Try getting through your day, Rod, without "feeding" on plant and animal life -- without their consent, by golly!
Yeah, the fetus is an imposition on the mother. Yeah, a mother who aborts her fetus is an imposition on her child! There are no perfect solutions here. The truth, I fear, is that being a woman means sharing your body with the "parasites" that occasionally grow inside it. If any woman can't handle that (admittedly awesome) responsibility, she should probably consider getting her tubes tied. Otherwise, the moral quandary will always nag at her.
Nick, this statement is way beneath you: "The truth, I fear, is that being a woman means sharing your body with the "parasites" that occasionally grow inside it. If any woman can't handle that (admittedly awesome) responsibility, she should probably consider getting her tubes tied. Otherwise, the moral quandary will always nag at her."
ReplyDeleteThat statement is simply odious. It's unbelievably sexist. In addition, no one ever asked women to take up the entire physical burden of a pregnancy. A men deposits his sperm and he's done with the whole process. He doesn't have to worry about carrying a fetus to term or endure the physical effects (or harms). Maybe if men are not going to step up, they should get a vasectomy.
As far as "feeding off," there are no laws preventing us from feeding on plant and animal -- just giving extra right to an unborn fetus, clearly not the rights the founding fathers envisioned.
Nice move, Nick, blaming the actual victim.
Test from Jack
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: I'll put this comments as something is bent on erasing my comments after its periodic wont. Well! You have been a dealt a classic politically correct scolding. Oh do beware!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: He builds his argument around the centrally placed, presumptuous, "self evident and self defining" automatically condemning two accusations found in the leftist lexicon of forbidden "isms".
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: This accusation, being one of the most despised by the elect, he apparently sees as freeing him from any responsibility for sound argument both before and after its rendering. His initial argumment that the fetus has no legal right to nourishment from the mother is grotesque! What about the right plainly established in natural law? His consequent defense of this assertion was feckless.
ReplyDeleteThe argument may be "grotesque," but it is nonetheless true. A fetus has no right to feed off another human being.
DeleteIf it is, I will be at your house tomorrow for my dinner.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: You have leave to relent, as perhaps do I, but we must realize that continued insolence will bring upon you, an accredited intellectual especially, exile from the company of the irrefutable sagitarry of political propriety!
ReplyDeleteFortunately for Nick, his statement was not the most misogynist uttered yesterday. That belongs to Gov. Abbott, who lacks basic biological knowledge of women's menstrual cycle. Women, he declared, have at least 6 weeks to decide on whether or not to have an abortion -- conveniently forgetting a normal four-week menstrual cycle can be off nearly a week, leaving effectively a week to figure find out if you are pregnant.
ReplyDeleteRod, you consider it "sexist" to point out the fact that women share their bodies with the babies inside their wombs. Well, they do. That't not sexism. It's science. Find me a pregnant man and I'll consider revising my point of view... I guess your position is that, because pregnancy is a burden on women, fetuses are dross and women should be free to do whatever they like to them and with them, up to the moment of birth. Well, then again, children are also burdens, so I guess we should be able to ditch them too? I'm sorry, but nature really has saddled women with burdens that it didn't give to men. Life isn't always fair. Sometimes it just...is what it is.
ReplyDeleteAnd Jack -- thank you for standing with me, despite my imminent immolation in the fires of wokery! You're a stand up guy. :)
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Anytime someone casually plays the "ism" card they discredit their argument. So many of those terms have been overused and misused into meaninglessness. True, they retain pejorative power but not intellectual integrity
ReplyDeleteYou said it, Jack! Even the "pejorative power" is fast receding... I greet Rod's calumnies with a big yawn.
ReplyDelete