Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show includes a deep analysis of the last debate, the latest Trump assassination attempt, and the state of the race, but you don't care about any of that. You want to know my thoughts on the legacy of Chairman Mao! Of course you do. And you shall. It's just a click away...
In other news, this is a very good article about the need for peace in Ukraine, but check out the authors: none other than RFK, Jr. and Don, Jr. Wow!!! Talk about a MAGA brain trust... Could this mean that Bobby is being sucked deeper into MAGA-land? Could be. It ought be a fruitful alliance for both sides.
Finally, someone has polled Democrats on whether it would be a good idea to kill Trump. Quite a few of them say yes. Quite a few of them aren't sure. Gee, I wonder which way they lean, huh? Another interesting finding is that a lot of Americans believe that either the Trump campaign or the Harris campaign was involved in the recent assassination attempt. Bottom line: 20% of Americans will believe virtually anything, as long as it aligns with their warped worldview.
Finally, this article merits your consideration. The lefties are nervous that the 2024 election could be decided by the Supreme Court. They're right to be concerned! A lot of their hand-wringing over alleged GOP election rigging is pure nonsense, and all the "voter suppression" in the world hasn't stopped the Dems from banking more and more votes. But the article is right that SCOTUS has already decided one presidential election, and it could easily play a decisive role in a contested contest this time as well. BTW, if it does play a starring role, I wouldn't necessarily assume that Trump will be the beneficiary. These justices have to live in Washington, D.C., after all, and their social circles would scorn them if they were personally responsible for a second term for Trump -- and scorn is the best case scenario!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The Guardian article concludes that it shouldn't be surprising if Scotus decides this election. Let's examine that statement :
ReplyDeleteThe article is a lamentation that the GOP would automatically benefit from such a situation. After all, it did in 2000. That that procedure was necessitated by Gore having perceived and acted upon a possibility that he could steal an election which appeared to be headed for Electoral College defeat is of no apparent moment to the author. That Gore being denied was by definition unjust is the author's only point.
My, my: I suppose if it were true that today's Scotus would deliver the election to DJT it would be sweet in a sense. After all, that is exactly what a leftist dominated court would do for a leftist candidate. Poor dears, they squirm when hoisted on their own petard, don't they. But this is the lawfare crowd, the "Critical Legal Studies" gang , who hold that the "law" is all about power politics and who spurn the painful centuries long evolution of cumulative justice in the English legal system and its branches.
They simply cannot abide the fact that this is a Scotus which follows the law. Since it has dared to rule against them on some critical issues lately, it MUST be unjust, yes? NO. It is the democratically established law which this Court follows and which has insolently thwarted the antiamerican left of late. That a lawful Scotus could rule in favor of their candidate should the election come to such a decision is beyond their ken (why they would never be as pusillanimously fair as that to an opponent!) Realpolitik and all you know.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The result of the poll of Dems on the idea of killing DJT confirms the success of the antiamerican left in fomenting a truly depraved level of hatred in our polity. It finally discredits their reflexive overuse and misuse of the superlative - "hate" to ascribe that intense antipathy to the actions of those who stand against them. They are completely bereft of any moral authority to use the word hate in any responsible manner. They need merely look in a mirror to behold virtuosos of hate.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack : The article by RFK Jr. and DJT Jr.: a thousand dittos. They hit it right on the head.
ReplyDeleteI lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. It seemed unimaginable that we were on the verge of actual nuclear war even though the possibility was recognized. In fact, we WERE VERY CLOSE TO IT!That is historical certainty which still astonishes. Aside from some empty grocery store shelves it had no material effect on us unless you were a military family and your family member left to face who knew what? We could be living through the same appalling hazard NOW! But this time we may be the nation which unwisely pushed another to the brink. And for what? Russia is as defensive of its fundamental national security as we are. It must not be goaded further.
Negotiation is unnecessary. We must send Russia a one sentence guarantee: "we will never vote for Ukrainian membership in Nato". No apology needed to a country as cruel as Russia has been to Ukraine, just an acknowledgement of a grim reality as credible and beyond any moral consideration as that of a bear sow protecting her cubs.
RAY TO JACK
ReplyDeleteThe Cuban Missile Crisis is highly overplayed, and mostly in academic circles, by lefty professors who never served one minute in The Armed Forces of The United States of America. It is also my opinion, that the Soviet Union was not going to get into a war with us over the antics of that bearded nut case Castro and his even nuttier minions. Especially dangerous was the late Ernesto "Che" Guevara, whom I will bet caused the Soviets to turn their missile deliveries around at sea. No doubt they realized "Che" was exactly the type who would start another world war by pressing the launch buttons. That's my theory. Also, the Bay of Pigs "invasion" was stupid in that it pushed what became the Missile Crisis. In any event, the U.S. should have, at some point invaded Cuba, liberated it from Castro, and run the damn island. Castro and Cuba was pushed in propaganda by Herbert Matthews, a leftist American journalist, who made Castro and his gang into heroes. How much grease does it take for a horse to swallow a brick?
Ray from Jack: I read somewhere that Castro urged K to launch the entire IRBM fleet in Cuba at the continental US in a kind of preemptive revenge strike before he was overthrown or immolated. This is probably hyperbolic speculation but I wonder if anyone on either side considered the possibility of the Cubans seizing control of the IRBMs. or perhaps Castro and Che may have had some smoky harebrained Marxist spawned notion of a perfect world emerging from the ashes of nuclear devastation and would have been glad to see the US and USSR go at it? Anyone who actually thinks Marxism credible or creditable must be unbalanced anyway,
ReplyDeleteRAY TO JACK
DeleteThe missile launches you speak of were certainly a possibility. Personally, I think the Soviets probably realized that and backed off.
Since then, us non-Marxists know that Cuba has been a phenomenal failure. We also know that at least up until 1991, Castro counted on the Soviets for support in many areas. Cuba never could, for various reasons, develop any real industry, apart from the sugar cane business. I say that off the top of my head, because I really don't know all the facts.
Finally, we do know that the huge failure in Venezuela was brought about in part through Cuban advice from Castro.
However, let me say from an apolitical viewpoint, that The U.S. was constantly interfering in Cuban affairs since the Spanish American War. Yes, that far back! Havana was nothing but a giant whorehouse, and casinos, and vice and corruption of all kinds, and the countryside peoples hardly had a pot to pee in, literally. The Mafia sure made tons of money there, and I don't need to rewatch "The Godfather" to know that.
So reality might dictate that Cuba is a byproduct of the dark side of the U.S. Certainly, Marxism was no way to fix the place.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the Newsmaker broadcast:
ReplyDelete"Violence has no place in politics" is a generally shared conviction. But marxists think it does have a vital place; Mao in particular was very frank about that. The "from the river to the sea" holocaust celebrators now rebustling on campus after their leisurely summer break are plainly far left and advocates of mass mayhem. The antiamerican left's execrable totalitarian style personal violation of DJT affirms their willingness, should they gain complete power, to savage us all.
Your comment that DJT in the debate ineffectively addressed some demographic concerns accurately described political reality. But just once I'd love to see a viable Presidential candidate say "my policies are directed to the benefit of all Americans.Let all Americans exercise their freedom to see them as they will and give or deny me their support accordingly . . . period!"
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Also: its worth noting that Hitler assumed the Brits were bluffing in their stated support for Poland. He had plausible reasons for thinking that in the demonstrated understandable reluctance of Britain and France to reprise the horror of WWI but his ultimate miscalculation cost the world the worst of all wars. It was probably inevitable because he would have kept advancing German conquest indefinitely. Is it possible that we similarly miscalculate (though without Hitler's monstrous intent) with Russia? Heaven forbid.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Taiwan may serve as proof that China's present material prosperity was achievable without Mao's monstrous administration.
ReplyDelete"Uncle Joe" Stalin's popularity among Americans in WWII stemmed from Russia's heroic resistance to the Nazi monster and perhaps from his benevolent avuncular visage on the cover of popular news magazines. Largely unknown was the fact that he, a mass murderer of Russians fully as evil as the Nazi invaders, cynically appealed to love of Mother Russia in order to portray himself as a patriotic neo "Little Father" of all Russia and, not coincidentally, to save his life, for which he initially suffered almost catatonic dread when Hitler "betrayed "him. As demonically and perhaps insanely untrusting as Stalin showed himself to be in the '30s purges, he trusted ,of all people, Hitler himself!
Mao's popularity in America never went beyond intellectuals and their hangers on. I saw it first hand in the American academy in the early '70s and it was tragically, especially for those of good will who admired him, wrongheaded. To my shame, as an ignorant undergrad, I was one of them. He proved a thing crept out of hell's darkest regions to plague hapless humanity. His murderous excesses were informed by the monstrous presumptuousness of "fundamentally transforming" one of the oldest and most successful cultures ever.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: When Castro triumphantly entered Havana I was much miffed! The almost constant TV coverage of his "heroic"advent preempted most of my favorite shows! For a little while he was much admired for overthrowing typically venal "El Jefe" Batista; the consequent mass executions were a bit unsettling and when he declared himself a commie, his visit to NYC took on, in retrospect, a horridly counterintuitive image.
ReplyDeleteI think the only place where Soviet communism was overcome was Poland, though Hungary tried. In Russia it fell of its own gargantuan putrescence and that enabled its satellites to break free. China freed itself from Marxism by becoming, once again, China. Yeah, Mao and his commies fought the Japanese bravely but Japan was doomed anyway on Dec. 7. A Nationalist China free of Commie depredation would probably have achieved a decent standard of living, with American help, in time. Mao's hellish experiments did China no good except perhaps to instill in it a permanent revulsion for Marxism.
RAY TO JACK
ReplyDeleteGoing to have to disagree with you about "Mao and his commies fought the Japanese bravely". When Mao lost out to the Nationalists in 1936, he did a Long march, and spent his time way up in the Yenan caves, (spelling?), not fighting the Nationalists or the Japanese. Then the Civil War from 1945-1949 which Mao won. Then he was free to liquidate his own people.
If you want to do some good reading on Mao and other dictators and how many of their own people they killed, try out R.J. Rummel's "Death by Government".
No offense I hope in "correcting" your statement about Mao fighting the Japanese. Actually, not much was left of the Japanese Army in China (The Kwangtung Army) which was siphoned off for the Pacific War, so not much Japanese for either Mao or Chang to fight anyway.
RAY TO JACK
ReplyDeleteSame goes for the Chinese Nationalists under Chang who were provided with lots of weapons of all kinds to fight the Japanese, by the U.S., and hid most of them in various interesting storage areas, to be used to fight Mao after World War 2 ended.
Ray from Jack: No offense taken; in the spirit of principled dialogue which you have displayed I respectfully disagree with you. Mao's commies actually fought both the Japanese and the Nationalists during WWII. My source is my studies as a Chinese Studies major in which I took several history courses.
ReplyDeleteChiang was no kindergartner himself but he knew what was in store from the commies after the war. If he redirected some American provided resources to a defense against the hellish Marxists: it may have been dishonest (though perhaps it was with American assent) but again, it was to fight a force which in power actually killed untold millions of Chinese. He may have believed, with good reason, that we simply did not understand the terrible evil of which Mao and his barbarians were capable, as time proved. Yes, his rule of Taiwan was cruel at times but cannot bear comparison with the Titanic murderous injustice of the "Great Leap Forward". Taiwan under the Nationalists offered its citizens a decent standard of living mostly free of the insane totalitarian Maoist experimentation which transpired and astonished all with its murderous contempt for human nature and the long established traditions of an old and great civilization
I took History of China since 1949 from a courageously objective former Nationalist Officer. He said: "We Nationalists did seek change for China but we did not realize how much was needed. " The Commies resolved to force far more change than was needed and in doing so worked inestimable injustice.
I think anyone who fought the Japanese had to be brave; the Japanese treated all opponents with gratuitous savagery (eg. the Rape of Nanking and the slaughter on many thousands of Chinese for the aid
given to the downed flyers from the Doolittle raid on Tokyo.)
RAY TO JACK
DeleteThanks for sharing your educational background on China with me. I would say you know what you are talking about.
Jack, on loaded questions like "Who won the election?", a lawyerly mind can always conjure up precedents and arguments beneficial to either side. I guarantee you this: whoever wins, or "wins", the other side will feel mightily aggrieved! I will also say this: I think Bush won in 2000, but the legal logic that SCOTUS used to stop the counting was itself rather specious. We might have been better off letting the Florida legislature decide the question...but that would have opened up a completely separate can of worms.
ReplyDeleteJack, a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO would be a good start, but I don't think it would be sufficient to end the war. There are some thorny territorial questions to resolve... What's more, I'm not sure why Russia would believe our guarantees, or us theirs.
Ray, I agree that we should have, in 1961 or before, invaded Cuba to take out Castro and his confederates. I mean, the Russkies wouldn't have wasted any time in invading one of their client states. But we didn't invade, we let Castro fester, and the missiles were the result. My understanding is that local Soviet commanders were authorized to launch tactical nukes in the event of an amphibious invasion, as of late 1962, so I agree with Jack that we came perilously close to...something perilous. Maybe not WWIII, but let's just be glad we never had to find out.
Ray, I'm no expert on Cuba, but I rather suspect that the horrors of the Batista years may have been exaggerated by lefty historians and journalists. Cuba benefitted in countless ways from its association with the U.S., and it was inevitable that communism would be a sorry substitute for the Almighty Dollar.
Jack, I too would like to see a politician eschew identity politics, but Trump has done rather the opposite. He loves to talk about how great "the blacks" did under Trump and how he showered HBCUs with money. Luckily, many voters see such direct appeals to racial and ethnic subgroups for what they are: pandering.
Hitler could be forgiven for assuming that Britain and France would wimp out in September 1939, and to a point they did. He was willing to take that risk, and -- if we're to be honest -- that calculation proved very sound. Later calculations not so much.
Whoa! YOU admired Mao, Jack? For what, pray tell?
Hmm. No doubt the Maoists and the Nationalists both fought the Japanese, but the questions are: when, and how much? According to Wikipedia, about ten times as many Nationalist soldiers died fighting the Japanese as Maoist soldiers, so there's that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I had a favorable view of Mao on balance because of the opinion apparently held by an Asian Studies Prof. I greatly admired. Frankly, I don't remember him talking about the Great Leap Forward. If he did, in this and other aspects of Mao maybe I misinterpreted him to some extent. At the time, though he was a respected China specialist, he had not been allowed in China. After he had been, he told me about being astonished by first hand accounts of the insanity of the Cultural Revolution (eg. PhDs being forced to work farm fields).
ReplyDeleteAs for fighting the Japanese, the commies had to use mostly guerrilla
tactics; that there were fewer of them may account for their having fewer casualties
The Commies did display incredible fortitude on the Long March from Shanghai to Yenan. It was 6000 miles long(approx. twice the distance the wagon trains traveled in our West); they started with about 80,000 and arrived with 20,000. General Grant expressed admiration for the Rebs for their devotion to their cause" even though it was possibly the worst cause ever". The same might be said about the Maoists on that march (Chin'a's Valley Forge).If only Mao had given way to leaders with common sense and faith in Chinese civilization.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: As you said, it is understandable that some peoples might embrace the promise of justice and prosperity which Marxists present. How even farther so then terrible and evil the now customary betrayal is.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Good point that Hitler's gamble on Poland did pay off for him for awhile.It may be that German forces were not ready in Sep't '39 for the onslaught on France and the BEF. The Phony War can't have hurt German preparations. I think Hitler always expected Stalin to turn on him at some point. "Acquiring" Poland may have given him a somewhat reassuring buffer.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Gads! Isn't it always the same as it was in Cuba? People think (often for good reason) that they have it bad so they believe in marxism's historically condemned dreams. Then they find out , too late, how much worse the radical left makes life when well intended people fall for its lies. We are well on the road to find that out in our country but here, incredibly, we have allowed our culture to degrade to a point where a very significant faction believes that the US is fundamentally unjust and deserving of punishment and forced transformation. Perhaps our miraculous and unprecedented material well being has given us leave to indulge in smoky idylls of future perfection and unimpeachable virtue. That fantastic notions which presumptuously gainsay human nature, when pursued with terrible resolve, have in the last 120 years manifested catastrophic injustice is of little moment to so many could prepare our country for tragic metamorphosis into a latter day revolutionary France or much worse.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Perhaps a guarantee to Russia that we would not vote for Ukraine in Russia would give Putin a face saving way of getting out of a situation which has put him on the horns of a terrible dilemma. He cannot allow the unthinkable - Nato in Ukraine. But this war has gone badly for Russia. Perhaps a US guarantee, though to the Russians not trustworthy, might give him a pretext for de-escalation and regrouping.
ReplyDeleteJack, that the Chicoms survived as a movement after the Long March is (sort of) to their credit, much like the fortitude of the noble cockroach is so universally admired, although the cockroach, unlike the communist, has redeeming virtues... But that's a fair point that communism's vague promises must have seemed genuinely alluring, especially in an age before the calamities of actual Marxist-Leninist rule were common knowledge.
ReplyDeleteJack, my impression is that both Hitler and Stalin fully intended to turn on one another. Stalin's mistake was in assuming that Hitler would bide his time, when in fact Der Fuhrer was in something of a rush.
Jack, I would say that the human capacity for murderous violence has little to do with deprivation or material abundance. Push the right psychological buttons, and almost any people, and a very large number of actual persons, can be turned into killers.
Jack, I would argue that keeping Ukraine out of NATO is fairly easy. One NATO member vetoing the idea would suffice. Keeping NATO out of Ukraine is trickier, because any NATO member that feels it should send weapons, intel, "advisors", or even troops can do so.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: It would be interesting to see , say, Estonia, declare it would veto Ukrainian membership in Nato, which would ,technically, end a Ukrainian bid. But it would not manifest the gravity an American guarantee would.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really good point about keeping Nato out of Ukraine. Russia might see in that possibility a NECESSITY made so by its fundamental determination not to tolerate a Ukraine which brings Nato in any way
into their perceived hinterland ,for decisive physical domination of Ukraine and that could have very ominous import. On the other hand Russia might satisfy itself with just that defacto and no formal protection against full Ukrainian membership in Nato, at least for now.
Jack, the irony is...I don't think Ukraine ever had a prayer of joining NATO anyway. Can you see Hungary under Orban voting for that? I can't.
ReplyDelete