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.
Flyover 41 – Paper for the Wiping
Max Ledoux joins us for a discussion about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and governors who won’t answer tough questions about planned parenthood.
Also, listeners are introduced to our very own live audience!
Intro includes music from Ronald Jenkees, and this week’s closing song is from Joy Division.
Published in General
Ryan, I don’t believe I ever insisted that Tom is insincere in his view. In fact, I believe he’s quite sincere. And that’s a big part of the problem.
And in your example, the perp could wait a day. . . delayed gratification, quite literally. The tax payer can move or not execute the tax-inducing action. The unborn . . . what options do they have?
Agree.
You rock, Cat III.
@Cat:
1) NYT and New Republic (both liberal rags) are your safe choices? ;)
2) I think your arguments are more persuasive to the point that we should take consent laws (a conversation we recently had!) and taxes more seriously, not that abortion is thereby any more of a grey area. I’d be inclined to agree with that point.
@Basil: it may have been that I misread the point you were making on that previous thread. I recall my comment being more directed at style than substance, but occasionally I am simply mistaken. I mean… it is super rare, of course.
I disagree. Sarah Palin is simply Sarah Palin. You are the one who is embarrassed. That’s about you.
Didn’t notice the wink at first. Still think those publications are prominent-enough and not so clearly partisan to be safe choices. The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal would also fit the bill.
Where did you have that conversation? Was it on an episode of Flyover? Taxes and consent laws should be taken more seriously, I agree, but you’d agree that some arbitrariness is inherent in the law, right? Seems unlikely that the public will agree that zygotes deserve rights, at least not soon.
And if he doesn’t wait a day he’s guilty of rape. Are you making the argument that excessive taxes aren’t a problem, because if you didn’t want the government taking your money, you have the option not to become rich? As to your last question, I’ll just leave this:
Precisely. That’s the problem.
Yes, I am embarrassed for her. Too bad she isn’t.
This.
Sarah Palin did not and has not handled her opportunities as wisely as she should have. That said, Sarah the embarrassment has been shown to be far more perceptive about the world than the ‘sophisticates’ who mock her.
The world would be a much better place if she’d been president the last few years instead of the ‘brilliant’ Ivy League types we were fool enough to elect.
Well, I think that’s very condescending of you.
“Should” is a subjective concept. I think all of us can look back at our lives and reflect on the various ways that we could have handled certain situations differently.
So then why is she “an embarrassment” if she’s more perceptive about the world than the people who mock her?
My biggest takeaway from what happened with Sarah Palin is that women are not afraid to openly mock another woman in the media and try to destroy her reputation (SNL and Tina Fey), a topic Terry and Ryan have discussed on the podcast before.
I used to hear people talk about Hillary Clinton getting a large portion of the woman vote, but I do not think that will be as significant as people might suspect. At least she won’t be able to count on it the way Barack Obama could count on the black vote.
The conversation we had was about whether it is fair to apply child pornography laws to kids sexting. My position is that we should not. I believe it was one of Tom’s posts on the main feed. “Government, Govern Thyself,” if I recall correctly.
My point is that there are a lot of grey areas in the law. Obviously, we are required to draw arbitrary lines in a lot of places; with taxes, there are actual metrics we can use to determine what constitutes a good amount. Not everyone will agree or be happy, but I’m ok with having a variety of opinion in that regard. On the opposite extreme, it’s pretty easy with homicide. Once a person is dead, right? Now, you still have variances for things like self-defense, etc… but all start from the presumption that a person is dead and there has been a homicide (i.e. those are affirmative defenses). In the middle, you have things like statutory rape and age of consent. I argue that we should consider the consequences as far more dire and be somewhat less flippant and arbitrary. Of course, we’re not quite as arbitrary as to say that “if he had waited one day, he’d be fine.” I’m actually a defense attorney – trust me, if it was a matter of days, I’d be emphasizing that quite a bit. Needless to say, there is still broad discretion in both charging and sentencing; it isn’t as if anyone actually thinks that there is a magic line where consent is suddenly given. A 17 y/o is treated differently than a 13 y/o, for instance.
All that to say, I tend to place abortion far closer to the homicide end of the spectrum (for, I think, obvious reasons). We can argue affirmative defenses if anyone wishes, but even that would be a massive step in the right direction, because it would acknowledge that there is human life involved. That is something the left has been unwilling to do.
With abortion, there is a pretty easy bright line. Namely: abortion. If you have a confirmed pregnancy that would require being aborted, there is a life involved. I don’t quite understand where the grey area is, here.
Two other posters said she was an embarrassment. I used their term to contrast Sarah’s image as “an embarrassment” with the reality that she knows more about important issues than her mockers. I think it qualifies as irony.
I think that is the point he was making. “Embarrassment” looks as if it is intended to be in quotes. I’ve said it on the podcast before, but Sarah Palin’s embarrassment, like that of GW Bush, was late night television. Their reputations were carefully crafted. If you didn’t have John Stewart and Tina Fey, both of those politicians would be taken just as seriously as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. If Stewart and Fey decided to skewer Clinton/Biden (or anyone), that’s what people would remember. It only shows how susceptible we are to that sort of subtle persuasion.
Alright, I just went back and listened to the ending, and you’re right. That really made me chuckle. But seriously, no props for “she’s lost control” after our talk of Hillary, really? Now, I could have titled this one: “She’s lost control… alt… delete.”
Highly speculative. Even granting that it’s true, being better than Obama is a low bar.
“Condescension” is a subjective concept. What you call condescending, others think is a truthful assessment.
As we should. In the example I gave earlier, Palin didn’t reassess the way she answered. She blamed the media instead. Sounds like another prominent conservative I know.
And men are not afraid to openly mock another man in the media. What’s your point? Is there some identity politics angle to this? It was serendipitous that Fey resembles Palin so much. Her impressions were funny and in line with the way other public figures are treated. They even let Palin on an episode of SNL.
The Democrats have the black vote wrapped up pretty handily anyway. What did Obama get, a few extra percentage points? Women aren’t devoted to the Democratic party the same way. Expect Clinton will have an extra advantage among single mothers, and single women in general, if only marginally.
Mocking Obama, Clinton and their compatriots more is something I can get behind. Placing all of the blame for W. and Palin’s public perception on the media, is not. Dick Cheney was portrayed as an evil genius, while George W. was portrayed as a dumb hick. This wasn’t the result of carefully crafting a reputation, just comedians capitalizing on obvious characteristics.
Saw that on the main feed, but didn’t read it, even though I usually enjoy Tom’s writing. Agree that kids shouldn’t become registered sex offenders for sexting.
You don’t, but the country does. A better example than trimesters is the exemption for rape. Even the Mormon church allows for abortion in the case of rape. You may think this distinction is arbitrary, but requiring that women give birth to their rapist’s baby is a losing position, even among many who would normally be allies.
Other than the moral questions, there are practical issues with a rape exemption. How do you prove a fetus is the product of rape? The courts take years to decide such things. Then there’s the likely unintended consequence of more false accusations. (This probably deserves a post of its own)
Cutting government funding from PP and outlawing late term abortions (like most advanced countries do) are doable, even if their ethical basis is murky.
That is only partially true. The idea that Obama is actually “cool,” is ludicrous. Obama, Hillary, Biden… all are just as mockworthy (probably even more so) than any of the aforementioned republicans. A highly partisan media and the fact that comedians refuse to mock liberals while openly mocking conservatives is not me whining about the media or trying to blame them for reputations; it is a simple fact. Now, where I choose to go with that is certainly important. Any sort of censorship is obviously a ridiculous thought, and it is not useful to be fatalistic, but it would be plain foolish to not at least recognize the environment in which conservatives must work. That is, by and large, conservatives will be heavily mocked and thoroughly scrutinized while liberals will get a free pass or openly celebrated. Yet, we are still very often successful – I think that is a testament to the fact that we are right.
Only years previously, Dick Cheney was celebrated as one of the most reasonable (i.e. moderate) republicans. Media shaping of his image is perhaps the most undeniable of any of the aforementioned politicians.
I don’t think we were discussing what would be popular, but what is morally defensible. I see no reason why rape should be any exception at all. You’re creating two victims instead of one, and the consequences for the second one are extremely high. That said, I’d be willing to bet that the number of “abortions due to rape” are astronomically low. As you pointed out, having a rape exception would simply increase the number of false rape accusations. Since we’re currently living in a world where consent can be withdrawn after the fact, I think having a rape exception, as a practical matter, would be untenable.
I agree. If we’re discussing the morality of abortion, there is no reason to chip away at anything. It is simply wrong; it is indefensible; case closed. If we’re talking about political reality and a more practical approach to what we could reasonably do about abortion, I agree that cutting government funding from PP and getting rid of late-term abortions would be a huge step in the right direction. The next big issues would be to focus on school choice (union-busting, first and foremost) and religious freedom (e.g. rights of religious schools to teach what they want, particularly in regards to sexuality). But that is looking at the much bigger picture.
… and, when Andrew Klavan unblocks my phone number and lifts the restraining order, I’ll have to beg him to come on and talk about this:
Sure, which is why I wrote “I think that’s very condescending of you.” :-)
But you wrote “she’s an embarrassment.” In fact, you think she’s an embarrassment.
Sarah Palin is the only reason I even bothered voting Republican in the 2008 election. And I would gladly vote for her again.
Claire is going to be on “Flyover Country”?
Fair enough.
I voted for Obama in ’08, and honestly considering that McCain was his opponent, I don’t regret it. 2012 is a different story.
@Mike; my people are currently engaged in tough negotiations with her people. The problem is, when my people call, her people are often soundly asleep in their french beds…