Contemplating Peat As A Possible Right Winger

[Such_Saturation]

Danny Roddy cuts the silence out between words to make it more interesting.

 

[Kyle M]

I'd like to point out that people here are saying they have a problem with Roddy and others because of making money, not what they are doing. This is a very bad place to be. If someone is doing something wrong, it's wrong, whether they make money from it or not. I got into an argument about Microsoft and their problems in the 90s with the USA federal government. My friend was saying they were doing something wrong by making their software not work well with other companies software. I said, should every business be forced to make their products work perfectly well with other companies? Eventually I got to the realization that he didn't like it because Microsoft was a big company, and that a start-up tech firm could do all of that they wanted and these kinds of people wouldn't see it as a bad action. And yet, the action is the same. Thus it is with Danny Roddy and anyone else, whether he makes money or not has no bearing on what he is doing being right or wrong. If I go into your house, steal your TV, and sell it for money, that is not worse than going in to your house, stealing your TV and setting it on fire. The problem here is that cultural leftists don't like money, don't understand the market and how the only reason they can sit in a nice chair and discuss things on the internet is because of the results of many years of market activity. Making money on Ray Peat's ideas is validation of those ideas and their usefulness for others. As original of a thinker Peat is, most of his info is connections he makes by reading other researchers manuscripts. Is that wrong? Should those original authors get a cut of his newsletter money? Is he wrong for making money with it? Thinking something is wrong because you make money from it is precisely, exactly 100% incorrect thinking. Making money proves your actions are valuable to others in the world.

 

[Drareg]

I'd like to point out that people here are saying they have a problem with Roddy and others because of making money, not what they are doing. This is a very bad place to be. If someone is doing something wrong, it's wrong, whether they make money from it or not. I got into an argument about Microsoft and their problems in the 90s with the USA federal government. My friend was saying they were doing something wrong by making their software not work well with other companies software. I said, should every business be forced to make their products work perfectly well with other companies? Eventually I got to the realization that he didn't like it because Microsoft was a big company, and that a start-up tech firm could do all of that they wanted and these kinds of people wouldn't see it as a bad action. And yet, the action is the same. Thus it is with Danny Roddy and anyone else, whether he makes money or not has no bearing on what he is doing being right or wrong. If I go into your house, steal your TV, and sell it for money, that is not worse than going in to your house, stealing your TV and setting it on fire. The problem here is that cultural leftists don't like money, don't understand the market and how the only reason they can sit in a nice chair and discuss things on the internet is because of the results of many years of market activity. Making money on Ray Peat's ideas is validation of those ideas and their usefulness for others. As original of a thinker Peat is, most of his info is connections he makes by reading other researchers manuscripts. Is that wrong? Should those original authors get a cut of his newsletter money? Is he wrong for making money with it? Thinking something is wrong because you make money from it is precisely, exactly 100% incorrect thinking. Making money proves your actions are valuable to others in the world.

Your off again with projecting and creating strawmans.
People have started a debate on what he is doing, the money he is making is part of the conetext and should be open to discussion.
You will see in my last post where I put it in bold where he is sending mixed signals while asking for financial donations.

He clearly does not have ability of Ray Peat yet charges more, this should be discussed as someone could pay nothing to little and get the same info from Peat or on this forum using search, his books can be read in under a few hours, his articles in minutes all the while he is open to emails.
The discussion is encouraging a free market!

"Making money proves your actions are valuable to the world" , it's valuable to their current perceptions, a heroin dealer is considered valuable to some.

 

[jaguar43]

You are missing the heart of the problem. We don't live in a free market now, nor have we for over 100 years, in medicine. The problems of today are a result of the state monopoly granted to the AMA and to certain other aspects of University science and medicine education. In a market, the profit motive drives producers to satisfy consumers. When the state involves itself, the producers (medical doctors, drug companies etc.) move away from satisfying the consumer and towards satisfying the state. They also then derive benefits from the state. This works by the state given them a cartel (it's illegal to practice medicine without a license or conduct scientific research outside of the state legal parameters) and in exchange the medical doctors prescribe drugs from companies well connected to the state, and University science produces science friendly to those companies and to the state and to the state's military.

It's almost like you're asking for libertarianism to fix the problem of scarcity in the world, the way you word your sentences. Scarcity it the natural state, just like scientific ignorance is, and only action can alleviate those things. There are 2 types of action in the world, when it involves more than one person, and that is voluntary and involuntary (violence). If you are advocating for the second type, please point out how that would help the situation and why the violence is justified.

Many products that aren't intervened by government agencies are still dangerous like Fish Oils. How would free markets balance the difference between advertising and marketing of the fish oil industry with people like Ray Peat who thinks they aren't safe, but who doesn't have the resources to provide equal amount of advertising and marketing with those huge corporations? How would commercial and advertising space be available ? Would it go to the highest bidder, or will the price be affordable ? And how would hit get affordable ? Would Fish oils be illegal to sell in a free market ? There are a lot of holes in the argument that free markets seems to provide everyone a society needs.

 

[jaguar43]

Danny Roddy is currently making an impressive salary from Peat's work, I understand he does try to tie in others work at times but it's generally a rehashing of Peat articles and emails at this point in his understanding of an incredibly complex topic. I doubt Benedict Ma Lerche is anything near those figures.

Is there any sources or references that has lead you to this conclusion ? I think it's pretty unethical to basically rewrite Ray Peat's ideas and then pass them on as his own work. Regardless of his intention, my thought is that why not send people to read Ray Peat's articles instead of rewriting them. It seems like a waste of time.

But I think their is a more important factor involved. Ray Peat writes his articles and newsletters in a way to provide people with what they need without telling them what to do. Since everyones needs are different. When someone reads an article by someone else portraying Ray Peats work then it's only a fragmented version of Ray Peat. Not the real deal.

 

[Drareg]

Is there any sources or references that has lead you to this conclusion ? I think it's pretty unethical to basically rewrite Ray Peat's ideas and then pass them on as his own work. Regardless of his intention, my thought is that why not send people to read Ray Peat's articles instead of rewriting them. It seems like a waste of time.

But I think their is a more important factor involved. Ray Peat writes his articles and newsletters in a way to provide people with what they need without telling them what to do. Since everyones needs are different. When someone reads an article by someone else portraying Ray Peats work then it's only a fragmented version of Ray Peat. Not the real deal.

No sources or references.

He has said he doesn't follow Peat word for word and also quotes other individuals at times but when helping people with diet and supplement advice it's mostly Peat.

He is using the time to study cell physiology and get financial donations for it.
He is self employed which seems to be the ambition of many other Health gurus online, the problem here is they don't compare to Peat.

They speculate and take money for it in many cases without fully understanding what they are doing,this is an issue, they are essentially behaving like the doctors they criticise.
Enaging in discussion on topics is fine but offering counselling for those pricies while using the William Blake quote of true expirementation appears to be subtly detaching from responsibility,guidance system.

I find the criticism of others who study Peat to be poor form with a touch of hubris from Karen also,everybody will have glitches of authoritarianism in their system they need to work through via dialogue, if you give the impression of taking the high road and not engage it's hubris,could be argued as authoritarianism ,considering the fact they searched and found Peats work with the right questions they should be engaged by those with an understanding further along even more so when you promote yourself as a guru type,the term guru is fair to use at this point imo.
Their is a question from Karen to Peat, she asks if Peat ever responds to people with go see a shrink or something along those lines,Peats response to this question says a lot, the question is a Freudian slip imo.

I think everyone who argues points on here should be commended for having the balls to engage in discussion regardless of intellect etc. Ray Peat put his articles online for people to view,I'm sure he had no intentions of managing a comment section ,he engages people via email, many of his gurus will ignore many questions about flaws in their patchwork theories.

Either way I think it's acceptable to discuss this on the forum, the obvious point being you will pay less to interact with Peat for 1 year and learn more than you will for DR monthly fee.

 

[narouz]

Left = more state
Right = less state

I can't say that has been true historically as a generality.
But on that general notion,
and to all you guys who are proponents of some version of "libertarianism" or "anarchism":

Economics is "the dismal science,"
but more is being understood about it.
Capital in the Twenty-First Century, written by the French economist Thomas Piketty, for example
shows pretty clearly
that wealth tends to concentrate over time:
the rich get richer.
And it doesn't "trickle down" much.

For a while, post-WW2, many thought the U.S. had things economic figured out pretty well--
with regard especially to growing a big middle class
and attaining a decent distribution of wealth.
Then, in the last decades we have seen the big hollowing out of the middle class
and the intense concentration of wealth at the very tippy-top.

As Piketty and others are showing,
that post-war era was an anomaly
made possible by intense government interventions of The New Deal variety.
Those interventions were reversed starting in the '70's and '80's with Reagan
and also under some Democrats, like Clinton.
The trade deals like NAFTA played a part,
although I think to focus there as The Root Cause is barking up the wrong tree.

The libertarian/anarchist types here think we just need to "trust the market."
"The market," for them, is just a reversion to the state of nature, to brute force.
For us (the U.S.) to have a decent wealth distribution
we need more regulation, not less.
"The Great Recession" of the recent decade was caused by lack of regulation--not too much.

There's no way around the need for some forms of wealth redistribution in the U.S.--
for us to have a reasonably happy and healthy economy.
We can argue about what shapes those redistributive efforts should take.
All this talk about how great things could be--and so simply!--under some "Libertarian"
or "Anarchist" scheme,
with no government or regulation...
it's just a bunch of theoretical talk to little point.
Where is there a real-world example of a successful Libertarian or Anarchist country
we can look to?
I'll save you the trouble: there is no such example.
The Libertarians have had their chance for many years to show some results,
to make some impact:
Ron Paul and Rand Paul have been around, hawking their wares.
Rand couldn't even make it to "the adult table" of Republican debates!
Nope--all those genius ideas knocked right off the table by that Deep Thinker Don Trump.
Sheesh.

And to return us to our theme...
This is the same Donnie Trump who was touted by Andrew, on the last HD's show,
as a politician with some good ideas.
Apparently Andrew sees him as the candidate most prepared
to save our freedom of the press--which is under dire threat at this moment,
according to Andrew.
From what quarter, he did not say.
Peat did not disagree or speak any contradictory views about Don.
He did, however, make it a point to speak out against Hillary Clinton.

 

[milk]

I like Roddy. I have given him some money.

He's making money out of popularizing Peat's ideas with a focus on fighting hair loss/MPB. There's a lot of things we still don't know about hair loss, the knowledge and methods available to fight it are still tentative, Roddy's latest article seems to be breaking some new ground, he's doing valuable work. I mean the interviews with haidut, Hair Like a Fox, it's good. Not only my hair but my health in general have benefited greatly from peating. Roddy introduced me to Peat.

I don't have what it takes to dig deeply into all the Peat articles and books and references and come up with a deep and detailed scheme of how it relates to hair loss and how, with this knowledge, one can fight hairloss. Which is what he does, he's a popularizer of Ray Peat for guys who want to keep or recover their hair.

I think Kyle M is right, I'm not a Trump enthusiast or anything but I don't see why people should attack Roddy coming from some naive lefty idealistic "money is bad, everything should be free" standpoint.

I'm not putting this very eloquently, just wanted to throw in a few words in defense of Danny. People are free not to give him any money. God knows there's people making loads of cash selling way worse things (Big Pharma much?) than a simplified guide to peating.

 

[keith]

I can't say that has been true historically as a generality.
But on that general notion,
and to all you guys who are proponents of some version of "libertarianism" or "anarchism":

Economics is "the dismal science,"
but more is being understood about it.
Capital in the Twenty-First Century, written by the French economist Thomas Piketty, for example
shows pretty clearly
that wealth tends to concentrate over time:
the rich get richer.
And it doesn't "trickle down" much.

For a while, post-WW2, many thought the U.S. had things economic figured out pretty well--
with regard especially to growing a big middle class
and attaining a decent distribution of wealth.
Then, in the last decades we have seen the big hollowing out of the middle class
and the intense concentration of wealth at the very tippy-top.

As Piketty and others are showing,
that post-war era was an anomaly
made possible by intense government interventions of The New Deal variety.
Those interventions were reversed starting in the '70's and '80's with Reagan
and also under some Democrats, like Clinton.
The trade deals like NAFTA played a part,
although I think to focus there as The Root Cause is barking up the wrong tree.

The libertarian/anarchist types here think we just need to "trust the market."
"The market," for them, is just a reversion to the state of nature, to brute force.
For us (the U.S.) to have a decent wealth distribution
we need more regulation, not less.
"The Great Recession" of the recent decade was caused by lack of regulation--not too much.

There's no way around the need for some forms of wealth redistribution in the U.S.--
for us to have a reasonably happy and healthy economy.
We can argue about what shapes those redistributive efforts should take.
All this talk about how great things could be--and so simply!--under some "Libertarian"
or "Anarchist" scheme,
with no government or regulation...
it's just a bunch of theoretical talk to little point.
Where is there a real-world example of a successful Libertarian or Anarchist country
we can look to?
I'll save you the trouble: there is no such example.
The Libertarians have had their chance for many years to show some results,
to make some impact:
Ron Paul and Rand Paul have been around, hawking their wares.
Rand couldn't even make it to "the adult table" of Republican debates!
Nope--all those genius ideas knocked right off the table by that Deep Thinker Don Trump.
Sheesh.

I think generally speaking, anarchism is considered far left and American style libertarianism/minarchism/anarcho-capitalism is considered extreme right. Although they have similarities with regard to distrust of coercive government, they tend to have very dissimilar theoretical backing.

Bob Black has some interesting thoughts on anarchism and the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but agree there aren't any large scale examples of either type in action.

I'm not sure it is any fairer to say libertarianism doesn't work because of failed attempts at achieving it any more than it is fair to say communism doesn't work because of the failed Soviet experiment, or the Chinese, or Cubans, or whatever other example of self-proclaimed communists that were nothing like theoretical communism. I'm not making the case that either would work, I just don't think they have been disproven by experience. Before there was capitalism, one could have made the same claim that it couldn't work based on the same fact that it never existed.

Anyway, still determined not to get sucked into this, just wanted to offer food for thought.

 

[narouz]

I think generally speaking, anarchism is considered far left and American style libertarianism/minarchism/anarcho-capitalism is considered extreme right. Although they have similarities with regard to distrust of coercive government, they tend to have very dissimilar theoretical backing.

Bob Black has some interesting thoughts on anarchism and the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but agree there aren't any large scale examples of either type in action.

I'm not sure it is any fairer to say libertarianism doesn't work because of failed attempts at achieving it any more than it is fair to say communism doesn't work because of the failed Soviet experiment, or the Chinese, or Cubans, or whatever other example of self-proclaimed communists that were nothing like theoretical communism. I'm not making the case that either would work, I just don't think they have been disproven by experience. Before there was capitalism, one could have made the same claim that it couldn't work based on the same fact that it never existed.

Anyway, still determined not to get sucked into this, just wanted to offer food for thought.

I am not against intellectual discussion and theorizing and analysis in the realm of economics.
I think some "libertarian" ideas offer helpful critiques of our current ways of governing
and ways of approaching economy.
But meanwhile, here in the U.S., we are grappling with imminent, real-life, political and economic decisions.
Bernie didn't make it, but had and has a big impact.
He strongly supports Hillary.
Only Hillary and Trump remain.

Who is more able to help make America a happier, healthier country to live in?
(Do you hear a giant sucking sound? :>))

 

[keith]

I am not against intellectual discussion and theorizing and analysis in the realm of economics.
I think some "libertarian" ideas offer helpful critiques of our current ways of governing
and ways of approaching economy.
But meanwhile, here in the U.S., we are grappling with imminent, real-life, political and economic decisions.
Bernie didn't make it, but had and has a big impact.
He strongly supports Hillary.
Only Hillary and Trump remain.

Who is more able to help make America a happier, healthier country to live in?
(Do you hear a giant sucking sound? :>))

I don't disagree; I find ideology tends to turn good conversations into religious type disputes where ideological faith takes the place of fact, which is why I don't generally engage. I'm pretty well versed in most major political theories, so just wanted to try to help add some context. I'm still unsold on most general political theories, so like you, tend to look for practical ideas from the various schools of thought and ignore the parts that are not of practical use.

I think ideology is often where people go wrong. Like many people who hold absolute religious beliefs that aren't consistent with facts, people who rely on political ideology typically do so to avoid having to think, and when confronted with facts that aren't consistent with the he ideology, question the facts instead of the beliefs.

 

[jaguar43]

I like Roddy. I have given him some money.

He's making money out of popularizing Peat's ideas with a focus on fighting hair loss/MPB. There's a lot of things we still don't know about hair loss, the knowledge and methods available to fight it are still tentative, Roddy's latest article seems to be breaking some new ground, he's doing valuable work. I mean the interviews with haidut, Hair Like a Fox, it's good. Not only my hair but my health in general have benefited greatly from peating. Roddy introduced me to Peat.

People popularizes ideas all the time. It's called marketing. It's about principal, why should Danny Roddy charge for the most insignificant things on patreon ( he was charging 25 dollars a month to email him), while Ray Peat provides his emails and articles free of charge. Thats being a little bit hypocritical.

I don't have what it takes to dig deeply into all the Peat articles and books and references and come up with a deep and detailed scheme of how it relates to hair loss and how, with this knowledge, one can fight hairloss. Which is what he does, he's a popularizer of Ray Peat for guys who want to keep or recover their hair.

I think most people have what it takes to do what Danny does. I get the feeling that a lot of people turn to Danny Roddy because they have a hard time reading Ray Peat's work or it's too technical. Ray Peat has even said this in his book.

Occasionally, someone complains that they "don't want to read a lot of technical stuff" (These people prefer to do what "the authorities" tell them. Where would the authorities be without them? I wouldn't want to interfere in their relationships with the authorities, except that the system they sustain is tending to kill everyone.) - Ray Peat from PMS to menopause

“The dominant cultures are creating a spoiled-child attitude in more and more people, an unwillingness to make an effort to understand things, or to independently solve problems. The ‘professions,’ the media, and manipulators generally depend on people who don't care to think.” — Raymond Peat,

I think Kyle M is right, I'm not a Trump enthusiast or anything but I don't see why people should attack Roddy coming from some naive lefty idealistic "money is bad, everything should be free" standpoint.

This has nothing to do with the money bad ideology. The question is are health and knowledge a commodity ? Can one really buy knowledge in that type of fashion ? Their is a reason why Ray Peat doesn't do private consultations anymore. People directly assume that I am trying to create an argument that says earning money is unethical in all fashions. I never said that, and personally, I think it's a reflection of their type of thinking.

I'm not putting this very eloquently, just wanted to throw in a few words in defense of Danny. People are free not to give him any money. God knows there's people making loads of cash selling way worse things (Big Pharma much?) than a simplified guide to peating.

So because someone else is making money in a more unethical way, somehow it removes the responsibility of the those who are doing it more ethically but still unethical ?

 

[Lyla]

If there was no point to it then why are people paying for it?

? Please argue properly.

 

[Gl;itch.e]

Guys if Danny can't make money from learning from Peat then we should also remember that before buying anything from the vendors here like Haidut, that redman light person, bluesky, carbogenics etc. I personally see Dannys coaching as charging money for time not for the information which can be gleaned if you wish to invest more of your own time and effort. Some people have other things going on in their lives. Are you to say they shouldn't benefit from Peats ideas simply because they can't commit the time to learn all that's necessary?

 

[Kyle M]

1) Fish oils are sold on the market because of the government monopoly of scientific research and medical licensure. It's not fair to criticize the free market for a problem when we don't have the free market. We have very little market in medicine and biomedical science, much more in consumer electronics. Which one has better outcomes?

2) Although there are no examples of "anarchist" countries (oxymoron) there are examples of countries making moves to more or less government. Singapore, Chile, South Korea, Hong Kong have all instituted market reforms and have had huge booms and boast the highest standard of living in their respective geographical areas. Contrast them to non-market countries like Venezuala, Myanmar, North Korea, you will see a pattern. Sweden because the 3rd wealthiest nation per capita with laissez-faire, and fell to something like 16th under democratic socialism.

3) When someone buys something voluntarily, they are signifying it has value to them. Perhaps their values are not as enlightened as the members criticizing their choices on this forum, but that doesn't change the fact that to them it has value. I would pay $0 for lipstick, but who am I to say it doesn't have any value? Very arrogant and, if I may use this most popular Ray Peat term, authoritarian, to speak such.

 

[skycop00]

Haha.
"Hillary Derangement Syndrome"

She is far from my ideal candidate.
But compared to Trump...truly a gift from Heaven.

Oh HELL NO...IMO...=))

 

[jaguar43]

1) Fish oils are sold on the market because of the government monopoly of scientific research and medical licensure. It's not fair to criticize the free market for a problem when we don't have the free market. We have very little market in medicine and biomedical science, much more in consumer electronics. Which one has better outcomes?

So your argument is that if we remove the government monopoly of scientific research and medical licensure then corporations would stop selling fish oils ? Nope, corporations want to make money regardless. In a libertarian society you are allowed to sell dangerous stuff because in a "free market" safety doesn't matter.

2) Although there are no examples of "anarchist" countries (oxymoron) there are examples of countries making moves to more or less government. Singapore, Chile, South Korea, Hong Kong have all instituted market reforms and have had huge booms and boast the highest standard of living in their respective geographical areas. Contrast them to non-market countries like Venezuala, Myanmar, North Korea, you will see a pattern. Sweden because the 3rd wealthiest nation per capita with laissez-faire, and fell to something like 16th under democratic socialism.

Those countries print money till their hands fall off, import every and produce nothing. Same story since the beginning. I am not falling for it, and I doubt anyone will. All you have to do is look at Latvia, Post-USSR Russia, Chile under libertarian dictator Pinochet. "Shock therapy" doesn't work and no one is going back to the gold standard.

3) When someone buys something voluntarily, they are signifying it has value to them. Perhaps their values are not as enlightened as the members criticizing their choices on this forum, but that doesn't change the fact that to them it has value. I would pay $0 for lipstick, but who am I to say it doesn't have any value? Very arrogant and, if I may use this most popular Ray Peat term, authoritarian, to speak such.

Just like Ray Peat said when you treat people like the "market" you get a very distorted version of human nature. that is what the libertarians want, treat everything like the "market". Thats their plan

 

[Kyle M]

So your argument is that if we remove the government monopoly of scientific research and medical licensure then corporations would stop selling fish oils ? Nope, corporations want to make money regardless. In a libertarian society you are allowed to sell dangerous stuff because in a "free market" safety doesn't matter.

Why don't companies sell computers that delete the users work every 10 minutes? It's because the consumer knows they don't want that, and in order for the company to make money they have to offer a product for sale that satisfies what the consumer wants. Consumers want fish oil because of the government controlled biomedical research and service system in this country and in Europe. Ray Peat's work is an example of a free market answer to that, he is refusing government monopoly money (NIH/NSF grants) and simply doing independent research and getting money here and there for his activities. If he was of a more entrepreneurial mind he might have started an independent, for-profit lab that gets money from patrons to do research. This is an idea I toy around with.

 

[narouz]

Returning to that last Herb Doctors interview with Peat...

There was something a little strange in the run-up to that show.
More on that in a minute.

My position at present is
that I got the strong impression from the show
that all three participants--Andrew, Sarah, and Peat--
favor Donald Trump for President of the United States of America.

So, I can't claim to have proof that this is a fact.
Rather, various statements and omissions of statements during the show
pointed toward this affiliation.
As I've said, Andrew meandered amongst several vaguely defined terms
while at the same time fielding sometimes unrelated questions from the audience--
so it was hard to figure out what Andrew was getting at exactly.

Let me tick back over some of the key points as I remember them:

1. Andrew said our right to freedom of the press was under imminent threat,
and even said lives might soon need to be sacrificed in the fight to save this right.
And yet: he did not say whence this threat comes.
So...dramatic build-up, big threat announced, but mystery left rather pregnantly hanging
as to the nature of this threat.
Because the vagueness was so obvious, let's try to connect the dots some with the following points.

2. Andrew--who it should be said seemed a bit worked up during the show--
jumped around to different topics several times,
and without clear connection.
One of those leaps took him to his former country, England.
He bemoaned what had happened there since he left--I think he said that was 15 years ago.
He didn't specify exactly what had happened there that had made him angry or sad,
but he did say that
when he moved here to the U.S. that
(words to this effect)
he drove on the right hand side of the road
and adapted himself to the rules and ways of the U.S.
Here's my guess:
the link between numbers 1 & 2 here
has something to do with Muslims.
In France, with the Charlie Hebdo killings, and elsewhere--Denmark I believe with the killing
involving the cartoon--
Islamists have threatened freedom of the press
by attempting to censor by murder, if you like.
England, of course, has had its Islamist trouble.
A few have tried to bend the laws of press freedom of those countries to their will,
rather than adapting themselves to the rules of those countries.
So, I suspect the subtext under Andrew's freedom of speech ramble was fear of Muslims.
There was the massacre some months ago in California by Islamists pledging allegiance to ISIS.
The Herb Doctors show is in California, isn't it?
This brings us to...

3. Donald Trump is, of course, the candidate who advocated a ban on all Muslims.

4. Andrew also wanted to talk about "political correctness."
Here too though, I couldn't get a grip on what his angle was.
He didn't give much context nor do much in the way of defining his terms--
except I believe this is where the familiar caller focused her complaints about the implications
of Andrew's discussion of political correctness--she too didn't know what he was driving at exactly.
Andrew then tried to paint in some notions of what he was meaning,
but, again, mostly vague generalities.
Somehow, somewhere in there, I believe our familiar caller
brought up the name Donald Trump.
Maybe she made the connection...

4. ...that Trump is, of course, the candidate who attracts a lot of attention
for his political incorrectness,
and who explicitly praises his own political incorrectness
as a much needed and very valuable political asset.

5. Peat jumped in at some point--I think maybe it was on this approximate subject of political incorrectness.
I think the familiar caller may've criticized Trump's name-calling,
and Peat responded to that (?)
by saying something like:
"Oh, but Hillary calls names too--she just does it in a smooth and politically correct way."
(I'm fuzzy Peat's exact wording, so please help me clarify.)

6. Did Peat mention Trump by name? I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

7. Sarah chimed in supportively of Andrew on some of his vaguely political comments.

8. Andrew said something like,
"I like some things about Trump, and I don't like some things about Trump.
I'm more of a libertarian I guess."

Okay.
So let me come back to the thing I noted I would get to, at the beginnning.
It may be nothing, or maybe it has some small significance.
It seems to me that I remember, at the end of The Herb Doctors show of June,
Andrew saying one of two things:
that there would be no July show,
or that there would be a July show but that Peat wasn't going to be involved in it.
That's why I was surprised when I heard that his July Herb Doctors was out and posted here.
I'm wondering if The Herb Doctors and Peat had, back in June,
discussed the possibility of doing an overtly political show in July,
and that Peat had said he didn't want to do it--
but changed his mind at some point...?
As I've said before,
the way Andrew seemed to be wound up about something--
and also Peat seemed kinduv feisty/aggressive or something...
Maybe they had all pumped up their pro-Trump cajones
and were in a mood to fight and to fly their Trump Freak Flags...?

Look, I do have sympathy with those who support freedom of the press
against the radical Islamists trying to murder it.
However...and this is a very big however...
these kinds of fears constitute no legitimate, reasonable basis
for backing a bigoted, shallow, fear-mongering, narcissistic, truly dangerous demagogue.

Which is what Peat and The Herb Doctors very much seemed to do.

 

[keith]

Andrew said our right to freedom of the press was under imminent threat,
and even said lives might soon need to be sacrificed in the fight to save this right.
And yet: he did not say whence this threat comes.
So...dramatic build-up, big threat announced, but mystery left rather pregnantly hanging
as to the nature of this threat.
Because the vagueness was so obvious, let's try to connect the dots some with the following points.

Haven't listened to the interview, but it seems like Trump has come under the most fire for being anti-free press. For example, Donald Trump pledges to curb press freedom through libel laws, and he has also revoke the credentials of members of the press who have been critical. I would imagine they would have been aware of his reputation in this regard, so don't think this specific reference would have been intended to be pro-Trump., but as I said, I haven't listened to it yet.