Today’s sadly Abe-free podcast takes up the question of what the New Zealand massacre might mean for our civilization. How can we live in a world in which mass murderers literally broadcast their killings? And in which senior advisers to the president suggest people read the murderer’s manifesto for the crassest political reasons? We also talk about Beto O’Rourke. Give a listen.

Subscribe to Commentary Magazine Podcast in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 10 comments.

  1. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    I think that it is unfair and incorrect of JPod to criticize the President’s spokeswoman for suggesting that people read the killer’s manifesto in order to exonerate the President, when major media outlets are blaming the President. Andrew Klavan’s podcast today included a montage of such statements by Jim Acosta, Max Boot, and Kirsten Powers.

    • #1
    • March 18, 2019, at 3:13 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  2. Belt Member

    Kinda hilarious listening to JPod trying to talk like a macho male chauvinist.

    • #2
    • March 18, 2019, at 4:28 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. Taras Coolidge

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):

    I think that it is unfair and incorrect of JPod to criticize the President’s spokeswoman for suggesting that people read the killer’s manifesto in order to exonerate the President, when major media outlets are blaming the President. Andrew Klavan’s podcast today included a montage of such statements by Jim Acosta, Max Boot, and Kirsten Powers.

    One of Matt Groening’s “Bosses from Hell” howls, “How dare you duck when I throw things at you!”

    • #3
    • March 18, 2019, at 6:12 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  4. Joshua Bissey Coolidge

    This podcast is either mistaken, or just making things up. Conway certainly did not say, as is claimed, that “everybody should read this manifesto.” She never said words to that effect. Watch for yourself.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhfs6b3s6bk

    Anyone who listens with a fair and open mind will understand that when she says “people should read the entire – in its entirety,” she’s clearly talking about those who are using the manifesto to blame the American president for violence committed by an Australian, in New Zealand. It’s quite obvious that she’s asking for those who are already reading the manifesto to not simply cherry-pick it for political points against Donald Trump.

    This shouldn’t have to be explained to professional pundits, by a nobody like myself. There’s no excuse for this. I predict no apology for this malfeasance, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

    • #4
    • March 18, 2019, at 9:12 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  5. DJ EJ Inactive

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):

    I think that it is unfair and incorrect of JPod to criticize the President’s spokeswoman for suggesting that people read the killer’s manifesto in order to exonerate the President, when major media outlets are blaming the President. Andrew Klavan’s podcast today included a montage of such statements by Jim Acosta, Max Boot, and Kirsten Powers.

    Thanks also to @thesockmonkey for linking to that whole clip. She makes a good point that only the killer is responsible for his horrible actions.

    Over the weekend the news stories concerning the manifesto were that the killer cited Trump as a source of inspiration, “I read the manifesto so you don’t have to so trust me that these are the important points” (which usually included that it’s Trump’s fault), and that the Daily Mail shouldn’t have provided a direct link for people to download a pdf of the manifesto because it will inspire others to commit massacres.

    Underlying the blame Trump argument is that the killer, in this one phrase instance, has put forward a rational argument that should be taken seriously and is authoritative, and that (surprise!) it happens to agree with what many on the left already say about Trump, i.e. that he’s a racist. Asking for a friend, but is citing the writings of mass murderers a legitimate source of support for one’s argumentation these days?

    The “I read it for you” and shaming the Daily Mail arguments are meant to discourage you from reading it for yourself. How do we know journalists aren’t themselves going to be inspired to commit mass murder after reading it? (They’re our intellectual and social betters, of course, so they’re immune to such hateful rhetoric.) Choosing to not read it and dismissing all of the manifesto’s content as the ravings of homicidal terrorist are perfectly legitimate responses. My response was to ignore Vox saying they read it for me and read it for myself. It took some searching, but I found and read all 74 pages. Not surprisingly the guy is delusional and all over the place (anti-capitalist, eco-fascist, anti-conservative, racist, eugenicist, hates Antifa, inspired by Trump, Candice Owens, Anders Brevik, and the Peoples Republic of China, claims to be a former Navy Seal and ex-Marine, mocks Jeb Bush, the American melting pot is terrible and needs to fail, etc., etc.), but even if he was concise, organized, and put forward cogent arguments, the manifesto would still be the musings of a mass murderer and not an authoritative source for supporting anyone’s political views and arguments, right or left. In the end, only he is responsible for his actions.

    • #5
    • March 19, 2019, at 1:20 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  6. Woolfolk Inactive

    What Kelly Anne Conway said is a fireable offense? Actually an apology is owed to Conway. She said nothing wrong. Watch the video and then listen to the podcast. This is Covington Catholic level slander.

     

    • #6
    • March 20, 2019, at 8:06 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. Taras Coolidge

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    This podcast is either mistaken, or just making things up. Conway certainly did not say, as is claimed, that “everybody should read this manifesto.” She never said words to that effect. Watch for yourself.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhfs6b3s6bk

    Anyone who listens with a fair and open mind will understand that when she says “people should read the entire – in its entirety,” she’s clearly talking about those who are using the manifesto to blame the American president for violence committed by an Australian, in New Zealand. It’s quite obvious that she’s asking for those who are already reading the manifesto to not simply cherry-pick it for political points against Donald Trump.

    This shouldn’t have to be explained to professional pundits, by a nobody like myself. There’s no excuse for this. I predict no apology for this malfeasance, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

    You’re probably right that none of the Commentary people will apologize for this. Or admit they did anything wrong. 

    This kind of behavior is why I canceled my multi-year subscription to the magazine last year, and didn’t renew the two gift subscriptions I was paying for. Where Trump is concerned, mere bias easily glissades into outright falsehood. 

    What terminated my decades-long relationship with Commentary was when Christine Rosen took Trump out of context to make him look bad. In his email response JPod, in his predictably arrogant way, refused to admit anything was wrong, much less publish any kind of correction. (I wrote about this at length last year.)

    • #7
    • March 20, 2019, at 8:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Daniel Sterman Listener

    Ah, the return of crushing morosity. How I’ve missed thee.

    • #8
    • March 21, 2019, at 6:44 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. LibertyDefender Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    This podcast is either mistaken, or just making things up.

     * * *

    There’s no excuse for this. I predict no apology for this malfeasance, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

    You’re probably right that none of the Commentary people will apologize for this. Or admit they did anything wrong.

    This kind of behavior is why I canceled my multi-year subscription to the magazine last year, and didn’t renew the two gift subscriptions I was paying for.

    I’m surprised that you or anyone not NeverTrump bothers to listen to the Commentary podcast anymore. I had to give it up over a year ago. I’m just here looking for juicy NeverTrump bashing in the comments.

    Taras (View Comment):
    Where Trump is concerned, mere bias easily glissades into outright falsehood. 

    Glissades! Nice word picture.

    Taras (View Comment):
    What terminated my decades-long relationship with Commentary was when Christine Rosen took Trump out of context to make him look bad. In his email response JPod, in his predictably arrogant way, refused to admit anything was wrong, much less publish any kind of correction. (I wrote about this at length last year.)

    How about posting a link to your diatribe? I could use a different voice besides Ace of Spades’ (appropriately) merciless criticism of J-Pod. 

    Your reaction to Commentary mirrors my experience with National Review. A watershed moment was Jay and Mona‘s first Need to Know podcast post-inauguration. They sniffed their disgust that Trump actually said – out loud, in so many words, “Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth.” Mona protested that it simply wasn’t true. Sorry Mona, when 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in America are in the Washington DC area, Trump is telling the truth, and you are concealing it.

    So, taking Mona’s late boss’ advice, I canceled my own damned subscription to National Review.

    • #9
    • March 22, 2019, at 9:42 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. Taras Coolidge

    @libertydefender — One diatribe (and 100 comments ), as requested:

    https://ricochet.com/514166/commentary-quotes-trump-out-of-context/

    I’m still getting National Review, as I haven’t caught it lying to me, so far.

    • #10
    • March 22, 2019, at 11:22 PM PDT
    • Like