Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
American Politics Is Changing
For decades, Democrat politicians have based their campaigns on the idea that capitalism was mean to poor people. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work. Poverty and inequality can be cured only through socialism. The only reason for you to complain that your taxes are too high is if you hate poor people.
Now that Democrats are in charge, and are implementing their preferred policies, we are seeing their impact in real-time. Particularly on poor people. Inflation bothers rich people like me, but it’s devastating to those trying to live on $50,000 a year. Voters are starting to wonder if perhaps, just perhaps, centralized control systems are less humane than Democrats have claimed. Bernie Sanders is responding to this as one might expect, by demanding expansions of Social Security and Medicare. But other Democrats are reading the tea leaves differently.
I think that all Democrats can do, at this point, is double down on racism and global warming: “Ok, our fiscal policies are horrifying. But if you elect Republicans, they’ll kill black people and destroy Mother Earth! Do you hate black people? Do you hate our planet? No? Well then, you have no choice but to vote Democrat. Never mind the economy, the border, European wars, or all those other petty complaints. You vote on the side of the angels!” This is an interesting, but fundamental, change to our national discussion. But wait – there’s more!
Because Democrat policies were obviously destructive, Americans have long been hesitant to put too many Democrats in power. Bill Clinton was a “New Democrat”. Barack Obama was a saintly figure above earthly politics. Joe Biden didn’t campaign on anything – in fact, he didn’t campaign at all. No Democrat could win running on Democrat policies.
But the Democrat party continued our leftward surge with two institutions: the media and the Supreme Court. The media did their best to promote leftism, and the Supreme Court wrote new laws that Congress could never pass. This worked fairly well, for a long time.
But the internet has created problems for the old media. Fox News was the first crack in the dam, but The Daily Wire, Powerline, Ricochet, and many others have provided a source of alternative viewpoints that didn’t exist until recently. Not just conservative viewpoints. But alternative viewpoints. People started to think, just a bit.
And the Supreme Court has changed. It has recently developed an interest in the U.S. Constitution. Which is obviously a very serious problem for Democrats.
So I look at the Democrats being forced to change their message from hope for a better day, to simply avoiding mean tweets. And I look at alternative forms of media gaining a foothold. And I look at a new Supreme Court which seems more interested in our Constitution.
And I think to myself, “The Democrats have a very serious problem, here…”
Of course, my optimism is based on the idea that America selects its leaders via elections. If that is no longer true, then never mind – forget I said anything.
But if elections resume in the future, then perhaps the Democrats have a problem, and perhaps America has hope.
What do you think?
Are these changes as significant as I suggest?
Is there hope that America can climb out of the hole that we have dug for ourselves?
Perhaps things are changing. Perhaps there is hope.
What do you think?
Published in General
Exactly.
Anything short of perfection is evil.
I think people are basically people: some of us have bad tempers, some of us wallow in ignorance, some of us are proud, some of us are petty, some of us are greedy, some of us are insensitive.
I’m pretty sure that I’m not going to change the hearts of many evil people by trying to enlighten them on matters of politics and culture. On the other hand, I think most normal Americans — people whom I think are not evil in any meaningful sense — can be persuaded with information and reason, with a demonstrate of compassion and concern, and with calm, thoughtful speech.
Sure, some are consumed with hate, are cruel, delight in causing harm: evil does exist. But I think people like that are in the minority, and most people are basically okay, however short-sighted and foolish they may be.
In fact, I do think people are basically good. Not basically saintly, but basically okay. I think most of us recoil from cruelty, feel compassion for those who suffer, want to be thought of as loving parents and good citizens, and wish the best for most of the people we encounter. So, no, I’m not going to ascribe a lot of human foibles to “evil”: I’ll credit them to normal human imperfection. I think that’s more accurate and, frankly, more productive, holding out as it does a greater hope that people can become more enlightened and more likely to make less foolish choices.
If you and I disagree about that, that’s okay.
Okay. I don’t think that’s a practical position to take if your goal is to try to influence normal people. Since that’s my interest, I don’t think I’d ever express it. Even if I believed it, which I don’t.
I’m not “normal people?”
I’ve no idea. I don’t know you.
But I don’t think “anything short of perfection is evil” is a view to which most people subscribe, given any reasonable definition of “perfection” and “evil.”
But, as I’ve indicated in response to you before here on this thread, from the way you use the words, you don’t have a concept of true evil or true perfection.
I’m not sure that explaining the economics of a high minimum wage, or the dangers to young girls of embracing trans nonsense, or the value of free speech even on contentious issues, or why impoverishing half the world in pursuit of low carbon emissions is a bad idea, or the importance of maintaining electoral integrity, or the fact that the Constitution protects us all and so needs to be preserved — I’m not sure that explaining any of that requires that people have a particular understanding of “true evil or true perfection.”
This is my view.
I thought this was pretty germaine.
https://art19.com/shows/the-victor-davis-hanson-show/episodes/b9606966-2477-4b07-b855-24bde2771388
My biggest worry is that with the Dobbs decision, Republicans are going to jump on the extreme restriction bandwagon, which could result in a backlash from said fickle voters. On one of the Mock and Daisy podcasts, they expressed a similar concern about Republicans “jumping the shark” on Dobbs. Republicans who jumped on the latest anti-gun legislation are feeling some heat already. Add talk of a total ban on abortions one week after conception (exaggerated to make a point), and fickle voters might turn the red tsunami into a pink poodle peeing on the carpet . . .
Distribute the Plan B pill widely. Problem solved.
If Plan B is an abortifacient, does it really matter if it’s being performed by a “doctor” or not?
Why is it an abortifacient?
If it prevents implantation of an already-fertilized ovum, then it (probably) qualifies as abortifacient. There seems to be some debate on whether or not this happens, but from what I read, if that DOESN’T happen, that would seem to greatly reduce its theoretical effectiveness. If all it does is prevent ovulation, but ovulation has already occurred, then it would seem to be useless as a “morning after” kind of thing.
Yeah I don’t think doctors say that.
You don’t think doctors say which part?
In looking up the mechanism by which Plan B works, they say that it only stops ovulation, not that it will prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting, or that it will cause an already-implanted ovum to un-implant.
Meanwhile, some claim that it can be taken up to 5 days after unprotected sex.
That just doesn’t match up with other factors. If ovulation doesn’t occur until 5 days later, then maybe. Although it may be questionable whether sperm hang around that long to start with.
But if ovulation has already occurred, and if – as they claim – Plan B DOESN’T block implanting of a fertilized ovum, then it would appear to be useless.
It sounds to me like they’re trying to avoid saying that Plan B is an abortifacient, maybe for political reasons, but it wouldn’t be very useful as a “morning after pill” if it WASN’T.
Yeah I’ll go with doctors on this.
Even after the way many/most of them refused to provide certain covid treatments, or any treatments at all in many cases, because they were told/threatened not to?
Also I’m not convinced that doctors – physicians – really know all that much about the medications they prescribe. It’s not really that big a part of their initial education, in part depending on what schools they went to, and of course that couldn’t even begin to cover things that came out afterward. If they read up on every new thing to come on the scene, I don’t know that they would have time to do anything else.
A PharmD such as @jacobhyatt would be a better consult. Although the aspects of reproductive endocrinology and such might be beyond his areas of expertise. Hopefully we’ll hear from him directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel
So, if it’s correct that Plan B DOESN’T prevent implantation of a fertilized egg/ovum, which means it’s essentially useless unless ovulation HASN’T already occurred – which is a pretty narrow timeframe – then it’s essentially useless as a “day after pill” probably in most situation. Unless it DOES also prevent implantation, and/or cause an implantation to “fail.” i.e., unless it’s an abortifacient. But they just don’t want to say so publicly.
I just read one of the ricochet doctors saying it wasn’t an abortifacient.
Show me the rabid doctor organization against Plan B pills because it kills people.
Remember, part of my argument is that regular daily physicians may not know about it.
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a40253736/is-plan-b-abortion/
[emphasis added]
THAT is an abortifacient.
Based on what I’ve seen that other doctor say that is not his opinion. He covered that.
And Plan B does nothing to stop the undermining of responsibility and the undercutting human worth and stop the underlying Culture or Death.
I’m not buying this. No way.
There it is.
Here’s my question: how does the government force any level of prenatal care? What do you have to do to get in trouble for bad prenatal care?
Maybe you don’t know enough doctors, or don’t spend enough time around them, or something. I have some in my family, and while they are very knowledgeable in general and sometimes in certain specific areas, you really shouldn’t expect any particular physician to know very much about any particular medication etc. Largely because there’s just too much of it and not enough time. Especially these days. Old-time doctors didn’t have to know/remember nearly as much. Nor did they have to be as good at math to understand many of the things they’re dealing with, etc.
That’s a big part of it too, of course, especially if it is a “no-responsibility” abortifacient, as seems to be the case.
Your definition of getting pregnant hundred Plan B pill is not shared by everybody.
Would you like to do some editing there?