Wednesday, November 1, 2023

The Best of All Possible Worlds


Friends, no doubt you agree with me that the invention of the hydrogen bomb -- hundreds of times more powerful than the mere firecrackers dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- was the best thing that ever happened to modern man.  Sounds counterintuitive, you say?  Well, I explain what I mean on this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil.  Historically speaking, we also dissect the impact of the formation (and subsequent partial dissolution) of the European Union.

In addition to hard-hitting, brain-busting historical commentary, Brian and I also discuss the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and the potential for its escalation, the rise of Nikki Haley and how it may not signify much of anything, the (sorry) state of the union movement, the dangers posed by A.I. in terms of misinformation and mass unemployment, the quixotic presidential campaign of Dean Phillips, and the decline and fall of Mike Pence.  


Have you ever heard of a radio personality who could do justice to so many complex topics in so short a span of time???  I sure haven't.  Brian and I set world records...on a record-setting scale!!!




In other news, Congress may soon vote on whether to expel George Santos from the House of Representatives.  Santos has admitted to lying about his background, and he is charged with numerous felony crimes, but he has yet to undergo a trial or be convicted of any of them.  A small number of Republicans seem to want to eject Santos from the chamber because he has become an embarrassment to the GOP, but Speaker Mike Johnson says "Hold on, there!"  He argues that Congress should let a jury of Santos' peers weigh in first.  I agree wholeheartedly with Johnson, especially in an age when criminal charges and legal jeopardy can be manufactured on a whim by Democrats and their creatures in the "justice" system. 

Finally, it's not a story that you'll see many headlines about, but it's undoubtedly the biggest threat that America, Inc. faces: higher borrowing costs, which potentially could cause us to default on our national debt, and could thus render our whole fiscal strategy ("throw money in all directions until our problems disappear") utterly infeasible.  In layman's terms, we'd be talking about a long and deep depression, in all likelihood.  We're not there yet, but current borrowing costs for the U.S. federal government indicate that bond purchasers are getting distinctly wary.


  1. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the broadcast: I think I remember that picture you posted from the 1964 campaign. It purported that Goldwater would immolate the little darlin'. Your commentary on Abomb vs Hbomb is well taken. I've been at ground zero of the Nagasaki Abomb and but for the monument you'd never know it happened. It was widely believed in the '80s that the Soviets had developed doctrine assuming that a nuclear war COULD be won, even with thermonuclear monsters in the mix. People who thought that way might well have been willing to use the less powerful Abomb. General MacArthur, who was no fool, seriously considered its use in Korea. I've read that some sources made available by the fall of the USSR say that Stalin planned to engage in nuclear blackmail or even invasion of Western Europe after he acquired the Hbomb. "What, I should care if a few millions more die?Have I ever? I'll just sit it out in one of my dachas!"

  2. Dr. Waddy from Jack: I agree with you: our acquisition of nuclear weapons first and foremost ensured the Pax Americana and has made their use now still close to unthinkable. Of course for those who are motivated primarily by thoughtless emotion, like those in the Middle East who are of ,of course, the doctrine which cannot be challenged,it probably is very plausible.

  3. Dr. Waddy from Jack: My father was very pro union and accurately attributed his ability to provide for us to his membership. He had known traumatic destitution during the Depression. I worked in a big old basic steel plant in the 60s, along with some guys who had been there since the troubled union formative years in the 30s. It was a rough, dirty, dangerous place but they said it was incomparably much worse then. I was in a NY State employees' union for 20 years; I am sure that the abundant benefits I enjoyed in both jobs were the result of union membership. Yet, with pain I have to say, some unions have serious faults which may have caused their decline .Some industrial and public unions have been usurped by marxists who use them for causes irrelevant or inimical to their members (eg. support for a dem party which disdains "working people" and their boorish lack of "enlightenment").At one of our NY state employees' union conventions we were bade endorse union support for the "preservation of volcanoes in Hawaii"! Oh my, yes.Most vulnerable to such cynical misuse, on topics far more significant too, are public employee unions for college educated professionals: surprise, surprise!I saw a public employee leader at the podium passionately raise his fist in the classic gesture, at the prospect of denial of a 3% raise in our already generous tax payer funded salaries.That left me cold; John L. Lewis he was not and our needs were not comparable to those who raised the heavy industry unions.It was pretty cheeky to compare us to them and we did not have police, firefighters or corrections officers in our union.Industrial unions and perhap most taxpayers lacked and still lack the Civil Service law provisions which afford most public employees outstanding job security.

  4. Dr. WAddy from Jack: I like Speaker Johnson so far; his conservative credentials appear solid. I agree, his is a principled stand on Congressman Santos. His apparent doubts about US support for Ukraine are constructive. We may have gotten an unlooked for break in his ascension. He appears to be unhesitant about taking it to the dems: good!

  5. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Bureaucratic dictators appear to have found a nest in the EU administration. So glad that the Brits refused to compromise their sovereignty to them. Somewhat surprising that Germany and France tolerate it (or is it?).Some countries simply have more stable economies and polities than others.Surrendering control of vital national institutions and interests to foreigners of lesser accomplishment is unwise. Economic authoritarianism today; political usurpation tomorrow; countries with backbones beware.

  6. Jack, you know your political adverts! Good for you.

    It's a sobering thought that the Cold War might have turned hot if Stalin had lived longer. I wouldn't put it past him. On the other hand, it would have taken him another 15 years to achieve nuclear parity, so, if he had tempted fate by attacking the West, he'd have been bargaining that the U.S. would let him have Europe in preference to being nuked itself. And it might have worked!

    Jack, I would say that, every year that passes, nuclear war becomes a little more...thinkable, insofar as the horror and lessons of 1945 fade.

    Yes, Jack, the unions ain't what they used to be, and the stakes for which they fight are hardly life and death. They make already comfortable people somewhat more comfortable. They give leftist union leaders a venue for pontification. They pointedly ignore the plight of the common man (and I use the word "plight" loosely).

    Yes, Johnson is off to a good start! If he wants to tap the brakes on Ukraine funding, though, I suspect he won't get far. There would be oodles of Republican hawks dying to throw more money into the pit.

    Yes, the EU could easily mushroom into something very sinister. Some would say it already has. If, for instance, it acts on its threats to strangle Twitter, then 1984 may be closer than we think.

  7. Dr. Waddy from Jack: I doubt if Stalin could gotten either Truman or Ike to back down. The carrier I was on was overflown near N.Korea by a 1950's vintage Russian heavy bomber in 1971. It was very slow and our fighters buzzed it like angry bees assaulting a lumbering bear. Of course it was all for show. Consequently I doubt that Stalin would have had the means to deliver Hbombs to N.America ( ICBMs were yet to be developed) but he might have thought to drop them on Allied forces in Europe. I wonder in what putrescent corner of hell that detested thing sojournes now?

  8. Quite so, Jack. Before the mid 60s I'd say it's safe to assume that any nuclear war between the U.S. and the USSR would have been extremely lopsided -- but, again, this does presume America's willingness to fight such a war not for its own benefit but to save its allies from Soviet aggression.

  9. DrWaddyfrom Jack: Ditto!