Friends, what better way to decide the relative merits of men and women than by pitting the world's best female tennis player against a hobbled, aging, washed-up shell of a man on the other side of the court? Heck, why not give the man a smaller area to hit the ball into as well? Both in the iconic 1973 matchup between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs, and in the recent matchup between Aryna Sabalenka and Nick Kyrgios, the playing field was anything but level. In 1973, this gamesmanship had the desired effect, and King defeated Riggs, and women have been crowing about "girl power" ever since. Now, though, in 2025, Kyrgios easily defeated the decidedly manish "woman" Sabalenka, casting doubt, for the first time ever, on the inherent superiority of women! My my. How the tables are turned. My take, in case you can't decipher all the sarcasm, is that a fixed, unequal contest between a man and a woman proves nothing about anything, and the whole exercise was silly from the start.
https://www.history.com/articles/billie-jean-king-wins-the-battle-of-the-sexes-40-years-ago
In other news, there appears to be progress in negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine War. As a sweetener, the U.S. is offering Ukraine "security guarantees". I'm not sure I like the sound of that. Why can't those he-men in Europe do the heavy lifting???
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36z615y443o
Finally, I forgot to post the last Newsmakers interview featuring moi! Oops. It was recorded almost a week ago, but luckily we covered a lot of topics that are still timely. For instance, Brian and I analyzed the upcoming 1970 midterm elections, which I feel are going to be very exciting! I also expressed a desire to fly in one of those newfangled 747 "jumbo jets". That would be a trip. I just hope the Jackson 5 aren't on board, though. I feel like the size and heft of their afros might compromise the plane's ability to get off the ground...
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Ditto to the max. I've always been disgusted by the way the media disingenuously celebrated King's win. They knew that 50ish Riggs had very recently defeated Margaret Court, a highly regarded player at the time of the match and they conveniently ignored it. Well of course, they had an ax to grind and they were not to be denied!
ReplyDeleteIt took arguably the best woman player at the time of the match to defeat a man well past his prime. It reaffirmed, rather than discredited the common sense , inescapable reality that men are physically superior in many settings to women. Everyone knows that and to take the King - Riggs match as proof of gender equality (or female superiority)in every phase of life is powerful nonsense. "Why if we are not objectively equal in all things then we will simply declare that we are and Hera help you if you disagree in the slightest. " That was the attitude of the "affirmative action" crowd in the 70's and its getting mighty tiresome now. Its typical of the proven ultimately murderous far leftist conviction that "if artificial and counterintuitive force is required to advance our justice then let it be and to the devil with those who are done injustice thereby". Luckily we have an Administration with the guts to confront this and to insolently insist on ability and merit as solid and honorable standards for advancement
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Lots and lots of good material in the latest Newsmaker show: You were right to ask why anyone would run for office, given the personal cost it sometimes exacts , especially at its higher levels. Conservative Buffalo commentator Tom Baurle once remarked "politics is BLOOD SPORT!" Of course some people enjoy the excitement of it ; what a thrill it must be to one day plausibly realize one could become President. Power and its ancillary and sometimes voluptuary benefits are of course very intoxicating. Too, some people do politics out of very good will. Washington had had quite enough, "thank you" and wanted only to repair to Mt. Vernon . He had survived incredible dangers and hardships. But patriotic duty drove him to accept the overwhelming public wish that he be President.And he astounded George III by eventually giving up what to him was tenure, not a reign .
ReplyDeleteI think WWII Navy Commander Adm. King once said "when the going gets tough the tough get going". That's certainly true of President Trump, who gave up the transcendent pleasures of well funded retirement to hazard for his first time the risks of national politics ,to offer our country the far reaching benefits of his courage, fortitude and common sense. Consequently he has had to endure perhaps the most vicious calumny ever directed at a President and that by the worst domestically threatening doctrine of modern times; that of the murderous and amoral totalitarianism which has so darkened the world the last 110 years.
So its probably true that some of exceeding virtue and some notorious lowlifes enter politics. We've had both types in our White House. What a maelstrom they embark upon at the levels at which incalculably important decisions are made!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the Newsmaker show cont.: Greenland . In WWII we and the Brits forceably occupied Iceland in order to prevent the Boche from taking it. (Denmark had fallen to the German but the dire necessity was such that that really didn't matter).The threat of a Nazi occupied Iceland to the Atlantic intercourse which sustained England was profound. Icelanders didn't like it then, but they probably would not have welcomed the Nazi oppression which surely would have been their lot. Denmark was of course then firmly under the German boot.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly but maybe not quite as presently compelling: we cannot abide a force like China or the prospective China/Russia. N. Korea "alliance" investing Greenland. It probably defies the Monroe Doctrine and in Oct. '62 we went to within a day of nuclear war with the Soviets with that as a vital part of our stand against the threat of the Russian IRBMs in Cuba.
So my suggested Greenland policy is this: Invoke the Monroe Doctrine against any attempt to base force which threatens us in Greenland. Declare our full intention to do so and to use whatever force may become necessary. Beyond that, leave Greenland and Denmark be.
You are right in saying that we may someday have to use force to keep Greenland from being used to flank us in our own hemisphere. But let it be only under direct and present threat that we do it, as it was in Iceland. Did we or the Brits stay in Iceland after the war? No, we are civilized nations.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the Newsmaker program cont.: you are right to cite the at times apparently disturbing measures , albeit conducted under stultifying legal strictures which include the threat of loss of career or even incarceration with which all of us experienced in law enforcement are all too familiar, to enforce the LAW! Law enforcement didn't make the law but its duty is to enforce it. Most "criminal rights" advocates ( as distinct from "defendants" rights supporters) would be disabused of their touching concern for cynical victimizers were they to experience a minimum of direct contact with those they so touchingly care for.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, criminals invoke extremely coercive measures against whomever they please, with no requirement for sometimes ill conceived due process. Why , they daily carry out the death penalty and that with the guaranteed benefit of prolonged legal wrangling should they be charged, which places any consideration of the ordeal forced upon victims at a distinct disadvantage to those of the perpetrators.
Dr. Waddy from Jack:Re the Newsmaker program cont.: The Scotus decision that the President cannot use the National Guard for enforcing our laws , at least in Chicago and for the present: We have a lawful Scotus and I trust this was a lawful decision. But BJ Pretzles has little cause to crow.
ReplyDeleteThe decision does not prevent President Trump from using the regular armed forces to engage the criminal horde, including those who resist ICE. And daily unfettered crime is a vital security issue to those who are victimized by it. And they are Americans living under a state government which shamefully countenances and succors criminals. For these blameless citizens this IS a national security issue . Let the flag our forces carry be "the flag that sets you free" from this oppression.
Gov. Hirsute of CA. protests that our regular forces should NOT be used to engage domestic enemies. Really Gavin ? I know you don't allow the teaching of icky history in your enlightened realm but c'mon dude! Ike and JFK used regulars, some of them elite units, to enforce the civil rights of American citizens. For that matter ,America's most costly war , the Civil War, was fought against a domestic foe.
Our President is still justified in using federal armed force to bring Chicago back to lawfulness and thereby do his duty to the millions wronged by criminality ,including that of the Illinois Governor, the Chicago mayor and the anti American far left horde they inspire.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re Newsmaker program cont.: America take note: If you want a preview of how AI could be turned to totalitarian uses watch NY state.Our far left servile Governor has declared she will seek legislation regulating AI in NY. Fasten your seatbelts, read your Constitution and get ready for another Diaspora of common sense NYers!
ReplyDeleteWell, NY is already a leftist Dem dictatorship and gee, the leftist cast of our state seems to be increasing at an ever more intense rate; why, its as if it feeds on itself ! And of course now Comrade Mamdani will have his way in very own "Comintern on the sea". Those living outside of the area balefully subjugated by the amoeba on the Hudson are now reduced to the rank of subjects only. We wait every year to find out what our Soviet has done TO us rather than FOR us. Anyway, if she wants such legislation she'll get it ; in the hands of far leftists" regulation" (excepting that which burdens criminals)always becomes dictation and has no limit.
For the time being its prime purpose will be to resist President Trump and MAGA in any way made possible by this Promethean new technology. A major tactic will be to reinvigorate the DEI which has been so grievously damaged by the Trump administration.
Its probable that AI will approach close to comprehensive vitality in our public and "private" lives. That of course makes incipient totalitarians slaver with anticipation of irresistible means to establish unchallenged rule over all aspects of our civilization ( after all, they assume themselves uniquely fit and just to be our overlords). I lack the technological skill to predict what specific methods they will use but I am certain they will all serve to impose "fundamental transformation"on an America which neither needs or wants that much "correction".
Its certain , I think, that the AI commissars will deep inroads on our rights and freedom in NY. They have already demonstrated their contempt for any part of the Constitution which inconveniences or vexes them. But I don't think America outside of the Marxist embracing few states will stand for it. NY and other Socialist Autonomous Republics are set to make a harrowing example in misusing AI and the sight of it can be of decisive use to the rest of America in staying free!
The Comintern was the Soviet agency tasked with exporting Marxist tyranny to the world. We can fully expect Comrade Mamdani to use his "democratic" socialist power in now subjugated NYC to spread his cult. "NY state and then . . . ! " Jack
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I think its possible that the maybe unanticipated effect that computer technology has had on our lives has helped us to see the need to anticipate what AI may do. That can be done in a democratic manner , with freely expressed , considered and prudently applied preparation or it can be done the radical way: "Why we already know the inevitable future so we'll just force it now against the ignorant and the evil minded recalcitrants . After all ,our unquestionable wisdom, which has always justified our relentless effort to secure our unchallenged sway, gives only us a unique understanding of the coming perfect time."
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Not having been a college Professor I will only venture the following: It appears to me that methods like tests and papers are meant to evaluate an acceptable level of understanding of the subject . But if AI becomes a common medium for immediate and convenient access to most of human knowledge for most people, then the function of teaching may need to be reevaluated. After all, what might no longer be necessary for "command" of a subject beyond that readily available to all? Could it be that education at the undergraduate level may become unneeded except perhaps in the applied sciences? AI can probably manage the updating of information and concepts previously the function of purposeful human thought and effort. But could it generate pioneering wisdom ? Is an AI Newton or Einstein possible? I don't think we yet fully understand the mental and emotional acuity which informed such minds, which could actually comprehend, even if only for brief and immeasurably brilliant insights, the actuality of the physics of the universe (s).
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: In saying the above though I have disregarded the heuristic inspirational effect many Professors have upon their students. I doubt that AI can duplicate that.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: If as you say in the Newsmaker broadcast approx. 1/2 of the population is convinced that the economy is in bad shape, despite plausible statistical evidence to the contrary , then you have expressed a very serious concern. If the disingenuous and amoral America hating "American" far left is still capable of such monstrous deception then there is still so very much to do.
ReplyDeleteAt this New Year we can sit back, enjoy a preferred repast and savor the astonishing good fortune with which our country has been blessed in the last year. But perhaps Churchill's caution after the British victory at El Alamein , after a truly harrowing two years of existential threat from one of the most savage powers history describes, still has merit. "This is not the end, it is not the beginning of the end but it may be the end of the beginning".
We have had an experience of very near disaster. Had Hillary won in 2016 she would have ensured the eventual "fundamental transformation" of the U.S. into a Marxist dictatorship. It COULD have happened! One of history's most unlooked for developments not only prevented her from exercising her vindictive will but has gone an unimaginable way toward reestablishing common sense as a guiding principle of our public policy. That is an extraordinarily encouraging reality; certainly the most astonishing I've seen in following U.S. politics since 1960.
BUT: this counterintuitive perception by so many Americans that the economy is bad, when it is actually COOKING, must receive our full attention. The totalitarian far left still retains harrowing and dishonest power!
We can combat it by unwavering support for the people and factors which brought us to this fortunate turn. We could easily have been on the guaranteed road to Marxist hell by now but for those phenomena . We must act like the issue is as it was in 2016 because it may well be. (Kamala , Kamala mind you, is at the top of the Dem Presidential polls. She is a nothing but she would employ ruthless radicals and be uncomprehending of their "revolutionary" intent just as pore ol' Biden was. We must keep on keeping on; we have them back tracking
; we can put them on the ropes and finish them if we but remain true to the people and organizations which got us to this miraculous point. The midterms are coming.
Jack, I'm afraid everyone DOESN'T know that men are almost always physically stronger than women, and that's the problem. Hollywood very often portrays women who are able to "kick butt" against much stronger and bigger men, which is nonsense, but it's intentional and powerful nonsense, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteLuckily, it's true that there are numerous benefits, mostly psychological, to holding high office, and thus it isn't solely "lowlifes" who make the attempt. In fact, I think it's fairly obvious that most politicians are bright and well-meaning.
Sure, we could occupy Greenland defensively, but the likelihood of that eventuality befalling us in, oh, the next three years is essentially nil.
It will be interesting to see what blue states and cities can achieve with their regulation of AI. Like social media companies, theoretically AI companies are exposed to regulation and manipulation in all of the many jurisdictions where they do business. Theoretically, therefore, any major country (or state), since it is also a major market, could dictate terms to such companies. In reality, though, it hasn't worked out that way, and a significant, and very vexing (to the establishment), degree of freedom of expression still prevails online. I think it may be the same with AI. There will be many companies, operating many forms of AI, in many places, and bringing it all "under control" will be tough.
Jack, I think higher learning still aims to impart skills and understanding...but to what purpose? Human skills and understanding used to be necessary to accomplish much of anything. Now that may soon no longer be the case. Already, academic standards have been relaxed to the point where a degree signifies little except the ability to draw breath. What will be the meaning and purpose of a degree 50 years from now? I dunno.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: A Bachelor's does make one at least four years older at a time when a person still has relatively little experience to refer to and discriminate with. I advised my kids to get one as preparation for the demands they would face for initiation into an intellectually based profession (eg. in grad school, a rigorous training regimen or the first years in such a field). Each of them did it and their BAs gave them valuable preparation for such required professional introduction.
ReplyDeleteOh, there's no question that a college degree WAS a good investment. It may still be, depending on what you pay for it and what you major in. The question is...how marketable will those (diminishing, in my estimation) "skills" be in 5, 10, or 25 years?
ReplyDelete