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.
The title of this week’s episode—”Let’s go Bruno”—requires some explanation, though you’d be right in assuming that “Bruno” fills the same place as “Brandon” in the more familiar slogan of the moment. In this case it refers to the famous and celebrated child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim. Lucretia was struck by Ann Bauer’s searing article in The Tablet, “I Have Been Through This Before,” which recounts the awful abusiveness and quackery of Bettelheim which somehow never drew any critical attention, and suggests some obvious parallels with today’s COVID mandate mania, not to mention a parallel public celebration of an obviously defective doctor whose name rhymes with grouchy.
Sample from Bauer:
[He] required the unquestioning, devout allegiance of his team to constantly remake reality so that it conformed to his recommendations.
Steve recalls once knowing someone who had been committed to Bettelheim’s care as a child, and who wrote after Bettelheim’s death with the same point in Commentary in 1991: Ronald Angres, “Who, Really, Was Bruno Bettelheim?” The close:
So to the scandal of terror spread by Bruno Bettelheim in his school another scandal needs to be added: the fact that so many people who knew about the terror went to such lengths to cover up for him—and, to judge by the mostly adoring accounts that have appeared in the press after his death, that they are still willing to do so.
We don’t actually get to the Bettelheim story until the last half of the episode, as we cover a lot of related ground getting to that point, including some new whisky reviews, some samples from the Babylon Bee’s brand new Guide to Wokeness, the continued descent of President Brandon, what’s up with Kyrstin Sinema, and the prospects of the Virginia gubernatorial election next week. Lucretia, to my shock and surprise, is actually optimistic about Youngkin’s chances! Otherwise, as she says herself, she’s “mad as hell and not going to take it any more!”
Subscribe to Power Line in Apple Podcasts (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 Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
The Virginia election is so critical to curtail the radical changes the current national government is attempting to inflict on us, but I’ve lost faith in the critical thinking skills of the average voter. Every election night I watch as the formerly red state turns blue once the vote comes in from Loudon and Fairfax counties. It’s a crying out loud shame.
Why is it so obvious to me that (either or both) Senator Manchin and/or Sinema could become substantially more important and powerful if they merely swapped from D …to… R?
What holds either or both of them back from doing so? —They could easily kill programs they hate and massively shape programs they favor.
I do not get it…are they not in politics to make a difference? Why simply say ‘No’?
By the way–The Hewitt warning was you needed to win ‘Beyond the margin of lawyer.”
Here’s the YouTube of that particular LGB song.
Anyone who comes here from my YouTube tip, here’s some stuff you need to know: https://ricochet.com/992200/intro-to-eight-election-fraud-and-related-claims/.
(Follow the links in there for more. This analysis is a work in progress. One year later, and I fear I have barely begun to analyze Election 2020!)
Particularly Manchin since his state voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Sinema not so much since Biden squeaked to a win in the D column in Arizona. Surely the GOP hierarchy in the Senate is assiduously courting both of them.
Maybe better in the long run to have an ounce of sanity in the Democratic Party than to have two more RINO senators and have us mad at them all the time.
But maybe not. I’d welcome the short-term political gains and two senators inching in the right direction.
It’s not like the very wise can see all ends. And I’m not even very wise.
Here you go @stevenhayward.
I get the “LGB” part of the Brandon chant, but what does the “TQ” part stand for? “Turn quick” given that he’s a race car driver?
Today, quit!
Steve has a theory about why Manchin at least does not benefit from changing parties that has to do with Manchin’s chairmanship of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee under the Democrats, but I have never quite been able to follow his logic. I do, however, think that being one of the few voices of moderation within the Democratic Party may hold more raw power than becoming a typical moderate Republican–of whom there are many. That being said, the reason I may not cast a vote next time for Kyrsten Sinema is that I could not vote to keep Schumer as majority leader and the Dems the majority in the Senate. I suppose in the same way those things matter to me, they matter to lifelong Democrats like Sinema and Manchin.
I am still not convinced that Biden really did squeak a win in Arizona….All the available evidence indicates that many times more fraudulent votes than the margin of Biden’s win were cast. Of course, we will never know for whom those fraudulent votes were cast. Let me just say that immediately before the 2020 election I witnessed a 74 mile long car parade for Trump through Pima County (a Democratic stronghold), but Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in person together could not draw a crowd larger than the number of press attending at a campaign event in Phoenix.
Great analysis at that link!
Thank you!
And yet . . . so out of date. Even then I was way behind in sorting through Nevada.
And I’m now so far behind in sorting through the AZ audit aftermath. And so much more.
Republicans can promise him the same chairmanship should he jump ship?
The sequel: “One Year Later: What Do We Know?”
Still so far from the end of my pitiful efforts to figure things out.