Friends, today, (former) Prince Andrew was arrested, basically for allegedly sharing confidential government files with Jeffrey Epstein. Well, I for one am quite tired of the Epstein pile-on, particularly as it affects, uhh, Mr. Windsor. The man has been quite comprehensively ruined already. It is more than a little ironic that the chief victim of the mass release of the "Epstein Files", demanded by Democrats, wasn't Donald Trump, as intended, but a member of the royal family. And how many leading politicians, in Britain and the U.S., would be guilty of the same offense, I wonder: sharing privileged information with cronies? I shudder to think! Andrew is a fall guy extraordinaire, if you ask me, and it ill becomes the political elite to revel in his humiliation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx28yel4811o
In other news, a vast collection of U.S. military assets, including two aircraft carriers, is now present in or near the Persian Gulf, or soon will be. Iran is the obvious target, but the purpose of any potential strikes is unclear. Are we trying to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program, or are we trying to force the Iranian leadership to abandon the country and concede power to the people? Those are two very different objectives, and if we're not very careful we may fall short in both respects.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1d64p3q2d0o
Finally, we got word today that the total U.S. trade deficit for 2025 was down on 2024, but by a miniscule amount. That seems surprising, given that we were told that Trump's tariffs would devastate our trading relationships, and no one would want to do business with us. So much for that prediction! On the other hand, you could say that tariffs have been a bit of a disappointment, because we were hoping to radically restructure our trading relationships and reduce our dependence on imports, but by and large that hasn't happened. My conclusion is that tariffs are working, but not enough. Maybe we need to increase them?
RAY TO DR. WADDY AND JACK
ReplyDeleteAnother royal pervert. Hey, it spices up things doesn't it? In a twisted way of course. Always amused by the American obsession with so-called royalty. Stuff like homecoming queens and all that nonsense.
And what's so contradictory, with reference to the British royal family, is that a lot of Americans gush over them, even if their ancestors don't even come from Great Britain. As for Charles III, he's a big Lefty. Check his ideas out as publicly stated. Amazing, how millions of people are sucked in by this drivel.
RAY TO DR. WADDY AND JACK
ReplyDeleteThe current regime (since 1979) in Iran stinks! However, the regime before that (supported by The U.S.) also stank. Think about it. What next?
RAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteWonder how many "big shots" went out to Epstein's Island thinking that if royalty went there, it must be okay? If Andrew stays out of prison, it will only be because the pastry chef on the island vouched for him, and said he never did anything naughty.
RAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, I am not impressed with the British royal family. Never have been, and never will be. Not impressed with their now dead empire either. In the late 18th Century they wanted to trade with China. China said not interested. So, the Brits colluded with Chinese "merchants" and sailed in lots of opium poppies from India, they thought the Chinese people might enjoy. Fought three wars with China as I recall. Then China gave them Hong Kong Island so they could push the opium trade there, and the British built the city of Victoria on the island and lived happily ever after on the place. This view is neither right or left. It is fact of history.
RAY TO DR. WADDY AND JACK
ReplyDeleteAnother thing the British did that sucks, is when they gave India independence in 1947, they failed to control the population exchanges caused by the creation of Pakistan, and thousands were slaughtered when Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims went on the rampage and killed each other without mercy. The British could have controlled this, and failed to do so. Anyway, I went off on the British because ex-Prince Andrew reminds me of the moral failure of the British during their empire days, an empire which all too many people are impressed with. The French empire also stinks, as does the Dutch and Portuguese empires. Portugal deserves special mention, since they started the Atlantic slave trade in collusion with the Arabs. And as I recall, The Russians created an empire, both before and after their revolution. Who else? Hey, almost forgot the U.S., which in order to ape the Brits, got The Philippines, only the fruit at the Del Monte plantations of course.
Dr. Waddy and Ray et Al: I am an Anglophile and I revere the monarchy as a cherished and beneficial institution of the "Sceptered Isle" ,"This blessed plot . . . This earth of majesty". I love it all and I think British civilization , on balance ONLY, has had a salubrious effect on humanity.
ReplyDeleteBut I mean no knock on anyone who does not share that view, either on the institution or its personages or the worth of Britain. Doubt of that can be very creditably argued ( say, by the Irish). And certainly the royals have harbored some unsavory and weak members. Edward VII apparently was a prolific and unapologetic philanderer. Edward VIII after his abdication was considered a serious security risk with his reputed admiration of Hitler.
"Randy Andy" has fostered an image of a reckless voluptuary. Now, in the U.S. "confidential " is the least significant of the security ratings. The next are "secret" and "top secret" . Don't know if the Brits have the same structure. But anyone passing any worthwhile anything to a sybariticaly EVIL sewer rat like Epstein is at the very least reckless and perhaps seriously criminal depending on the nature of the "gift", in the British law setting.
A comment I heard on Fox yesterday held that "the very wealthy elite" often think themselves excused of traditional morality. Their riches give them access to darkly voluptuary delights and some of them enjoy them free of misgivings. I was exposed to such people as I grew up on the modest fringes of a very affluent neighborhood and went to school with their scions and their "debs"(most of them were positive and constructive citizens but some of them fit the mold). While in the Navy I was stationed for a summer in Newport R.I. and observed the druggy jet set which frequented that place. In both settings I saw some apparent confirmation of the opinion I have described above - an attitude dismissive of common restraint and decency. Looks like some members of the British royal family succumbed to this lotus eating indolence. If so they stand in telling contrast to true ROYALS like Queen Elizabeth II.
Ray, I have always thought mostly saintly Gandhi should also be judged by the intensely tragic outcome of the partition of India and Pakistan (reports say trains full of emigres arrived with everyone aboard dead). The Brits were exhausted by WWII , during which they did manage to prevent the savage Japanese from investing the subcontinent . The Indian Congress had bade them leave, so they did. British rule had saved India from investment by expansive Russia and consequent eventual Soviet embrace. It had institutionalized customs like parliament and the British legal system which many South Asians credit today ; I have personally heard them do so and read an Indian PM's opinion that it was time that India allow that it benefitted from England's colonial rule.