Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show covers ever so much ground, as per usual. Brian and I shoot the rapids of the Strait of Hormuz, we amble through the bucolic splendor of the Donbass, and we even pay a visit to the state of my birth -- California -- to consider whether it is sliding into anarchy or ascending to the status of a progressive utopia...and we ask whether California voters care either way. It's a super duper show, and you'd be gaga to miss it!
https://wysl.podbean.com/e/newsmakers-6-6-26/
In other news, don't look now, but the U.S. economy is chugging along just fine, DESPITE the supposedly catacysmic effects of the "war" with Iran. Makes you wonder what this economy will look like when a hobbled Iran begs for terms, as it surely will, sooner or later...
RAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteI was raised on The Left Coast (Sorry, West Coast) in Oregon and California, and graduated from High School in Carlsbad, CA back in the day. The so called Golden State was already going down the sewer then, with the Hippie movement already active in The San Francisco Bay area, where it was conceived.
Long before that, SOCAL, with special focus on L.A. was already a solidly entrenched lair of decadence. Come to think of it, the entire state was always nutty in a way that is hard to describe. Of course, "normal" people still live there, but many can't always leave, or don't have the means to do so.
RAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteAt one time, I thought that Northern California could break off and become a second state. However, I have changed my mind after reading up on the shenanigans at Bethel Church in Redding, California. Check them out. Also, I am sure you are aware that California is the birthplace of some questionable forms of religion anyway. The whole place is showbiz !
Ray from Jack: The depravity we now know was inevitable with the silly flower power phenomenon was a result of the always opportunistic cynical criminal low lifes' quick realization that they had an endless supply of "pigeons" in that youthful multitude. Of course they did! That is just common sense. After all , illegal drugs, once regarded as a sure sign of personal descent into the gutter, became beloved of affluent campus lotus eaters. Worse, they actually thought it profound and productive of exalted social activism. The goofy collegians of the '50s never thought of affording that honor to panty raids , goldfish swallowing, phone booth stuffing and beer blasts. Then they grew up!
ReplyDeleteIn New York we saw early signs in the the murder of James "Groovy" Hutchinson , an renowned young sage in already smoky and reflexively America spurning Greenwich Village , in '66. And we all know now that once the bad asses invested renowned Haight-Asbury 's brief "summer of love" it was cynically debauched. Looks like Frisco never recovered from that. Gee, isn't that where Newsom came from?
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the Newsmaker broadcast 6/6/26: Yes, Newsom. Your comment that Newsom's experiment in reducing California to complete DSA/Dem (my term)control is a success hits it on the head.
ReplyDeleteOne of Marxism's fundamental goals is to seize the power to force arbitrary policy on subjected populations. Such policy may change at any time in response to the whims of its dictators. The 20th century affirms this in its history of impossible"5 Year Plans", "Struggle Against" (once exalted ) figures, like, say, Confucius and "get the hell out of your Phnom Penh home right now and proceed to reeducation camp out in the jungle". The inspiration and object is to have the unquestionable power to direct all aspects of everyday life in a once doctrinally perverse society.
It was once opined that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" Marxism affirms the wisdom of that observation . Ok, California is still a democracy of sorts and some possibility of restoration of common sense policy making there might obtain. Marxism has usually taken power by force in gravely wounded and desperate countries. Its "American" proponents have since the ' 60s clearly demonstrated their fanatic intent to invest a US which enjoys unprecedented high quality of life. But they have had to develop a new way to take over. The incipient totalitarianism manifested by such as Newsom and gaining power once again, may be exemplary of that strategy.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the broadcast: For sure the Ukraine War is an exhaustive testing ground for new military technology. Drones just might prove to be as important an innovation as , say, the submarine in WWI. It allowed a Germany which never could have matched the Royal Navy on the surface to bring Britain to the edge of extremis. First Sea Lord Jellicoe told American Admiral Sims in 1917 that Britain was within two months of starvation for the supplies it could only get by sea.
ReplyDeleteBut the Ukraine War also suggests WWI in that it has turned into a slugfest with no end in sight.Then again each side has an understandably unshakeable devotion to its reason for fighting. In WWI , although WWI was to have almost incalculably significant historical consequences , these were not apparent at the time. Maybe the fighting was self perpetuating. America expressed perhaps the best reason for getting involved: freedom of world commerce. Am I on the right track here?
Dr. Waddy from Jack : Re the broadcast: "Why Iran has no Uranium enriched close to weapons grade". How convenient such a misapprehension is for an "American"far left which has striven for American defeat in every war since Vietnam. To them the fact that Iran has remained defiant through 250 billion smackers of damage to protect this "nonexistent" trove is merely indicative of American savagery. The fact that Israel is right in it with us is beneath contempt for the Jew hating "American" left. Israel has immediate absolutely vital importance at stake in this war and it employs proven superlative intelligence . Their belief that Iran could go nuclear has virtually unshakeable credibility.
ReplyDeleteWith most other countries it might be wise to believe that the promise of overwhelming both American and /or Israel retaliation keeps them from using them on us or Israel. But with a nation ruled by a fanatic neo Medieval regime which lauds gallant suicide in defense of its doctrine and against any person or power which offends its , eh, "sensibilities", that assumption is very unwise.
". . . Jew hating 'American' far left" . . . rather. Jack
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: On the Newsmaker broadcast you mentioned that Congressman Langworthy , the Rep. from the area I live in is sponsoring legislation to end medical experimentation on dogs and cats.
ReplyDeleteDogs and cats are highly sentient beings capable, I think from my experiences with them, of a wide range of emotions and desirous of relatively comfortable lives with freedom from pain.
Though I am almost completely ignorant of what AI can do I would guess that serious consideration should be given to having AI replace medical experimentation with dogs, cats and similarly sentient animals. And if it isn't for medicine , then it should be outright banned, now!
Perhaps GOP Rep. Langworthy's bill will bring needed attention to this issue. I completely agree with you that he need not make this effort in order to garner electoral support. Our common sense district is highly unlikely to elect a DSA/Dem "representative". With that party's accelerating swing to the far left ever more certain , the thought of any such unrepresentative "representative "being foisted on us is appalling. Now that socialist Ithaca, N.Y. , seat of the Cornell "University"reeducation camp , is no longer in our district I wonder why any of them even try.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I join you in applauding Rep. Langworthy for his effort. I'm sure that most people involved in medical research with dogs, cats or similarly perceptive animals are of the best intent and have gotten beneficial results . But its probably time to make a strong effort to see if this practice can be eliminated.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Careful: in noting that our economy is doing well at any time you give the far left leave to bleat that all American policy is motivated solely by a savage avarice which is essentially American in its amoral cupidity. In wartime of course the "American"far left, determined to bring about American defeat, sees in this "verity"a good opportunity to give aid and comfort to the enemy. As always, their object is American defeat and its ancillary benefits like American discouragement and decisive doubt in itself. In addition, the opportunity to rain on America's "smug "250th anniversary is of special delight to the America haters.
ReplyDeleteJack, I personally don't think any of the belligerents in WWI had very good reasons to go to war, except arrogance and pig-headedness, which I guess are the stock human rationales for most major enterprises, so why not... But I would rate America's reasons for entering the war as especially weak. "World commerce"? Then why were we not offended by Britain's (illegal) blockade of Germany? No, we leaned to one side from the start, and the Germans foolishly provoked us, believing that they could win the war before our belligerence would make a difference. They were nearly right, but not quite.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for protecting dogs and cats from needless cruelty, but I do worry that only "cute" animals seem to rate any form of compassion. Is there a time and a place for animal experimentation? Sure. I mean, we experiment on humans, so why not animals? In both cases, however, we should take a balanced view of the risks and rewards, the downsides and upsides, and never should we inflict pain without very good reason. That's just common sense.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I agree with you about the probability that animals perhaps not as widely beloved as cats and dogs may not receive the attention they deserve in the effort to eliminate any but absolutely necessary infliction of experimental pain on animals. I can't think of a setting other than medicine which MAY justify it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps though, Rep. Langworthy, with political realism, concentrated on dogs and cats because so many people treasure them. If he is successful, it could provide precedent for extension of such protection even unto many other sentient animals.
I once read of a perfume company which tied rabbits down and dropped perfume on their eyes so as to observe the inflammation it produced. Those fey lowlifes deserved to have the same done to them!
I've been close to animals almost all my life. I've lived with innumerable , dogs, cats, chickens, geese , turkeys and ducks. I live close to places with cattle, sheep and goats. I am convinced that all of these species and many more, fully experience intense pain, debilitating confinement, trying conditions like intense heat or cold , emotional upset and ,
especially , love for their offspring. I think they may have mental
abilities which somewhat mitigate such suffering but that they enthusiastically embrace relief from it. We MUST be very careful to fully recognize these realities, I think.
I must admit I eat meat and I hunt. But I hunt responsibly and ONLY for animals I can eat.Otherwise I eat only animals I think have been processed with relative humaneness. I use enough weaponly power and I practice accuracy. The deer I hunt must be culled lest they starve in winter or fall to undeniably omnipresent motor vehicles. I fully respect those who believe that the killing of animals for their meat is an amoral practice but I remind them that it is ubiquitous in nature and without regard for the feelings of the victim. Eg. only: a Northern Pike catches smaller fish alive and then scales them alive with its toothy mouth and cruelly raspy tongue. I have seen raccoons gnawing on the neck of a live duck. I only ask that this undeniable reality be taken into serious consideration. If humanity could satisfy its (perhaps integral) taste for meat by artificial substitution I would think that to be civilized but best it be planned with full recognition of its negative consequences: destruction of the livings of many, perhaps unanticipated failure of it to ensure health.
But with the Promethean development of AI, I would guess it's possible to stop tormenting animals, who are unable to plead their cause and are unaware of the human means of redeeming them.
Dr. Waddyfrom Jack: Re WWI: but what about the defacto, almost decisive blockade of Britain imposed by the Uboats especially when Germany declared unrestricted attack on all shipping bound for Britain? Was this a harbinger of what a victorious Wilhelmine Germany might have imposed on the world? How could Britain be faulted for using its up until then proven naval dominance to counter the continental threat of the Teutonic horde?
ReplyDeleteRay from Jack: Looking back at some of the posts I see you noted John Reed, The author of Ten Days That Shook the World, which I understand portrayed the Bolshevik triumph as a good thing. Can't really hold it against people like Reed or "Big Bill" Heywood, the one-time head of the International Workers of the World , for thinking at that early stage of empowered Marxism that the millennium had arrived. But. . .
ReplyDeleteIn '75 or '76 I attended a talk by William Hinton, American author of Fan-Shen, which I have read , an account of Maoist grassroots efforts after 1949 to convince the Chinese that they had been purposefully oppressed and that their newly imposed Marxism would deliver them . Hinton enthusiastically declared at the talk that he was a Marxist. That! After Mao's "Great Leap Forward" in the '50s which starved approx. 20 millions in one of the most productive nations of all. . . THAT! He should have known better by then and so should all who yet countenance, embrace or apologize for the now, after 109 years, proven most inhuman doctrine in history.
Jack, the main difference between the WWI British (surface) blockade of Germany, and the German (underwater) blockade of Britain, is that, in the former case, no one dared to test it, except the Germans, and in the latter case, no one bothered to respect it, including us. We weren't willing to defy the Brits, but we were eager to defy the Germans. Some of that comes down to profits and losses, of course, but very little of it has to do with principle, per se.
ReplyDelete