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.
Lucretia hosts this week’s episode, though this does not let Steve and John off the hook for their Stockholm Syndrome symptoms in any way. The run-up to America’s most holy secular observance—the Super Bowl—found Steve having his own Bill & Ted-style excellent adventure with Gov. Ron DeSantis, Lucretia pondering Sy Hersh’s latest purported scoop on who blew up the Nordstream 2 pipeline, and John starting to clear away some of his enduring confusions about natural law.
That’s quite a trifecta of weighty topics, but we still manage to get in some huzzahs about the Super Bowl (John, a Philadelphia native, is not neutral on the desired outcome of the contest, and he has his t-shirt to prove it), while Lucretia takes Steve to task for his retro-Genesis t-shirt (see below). We also muse about whether a prospective “Lucretia’s Compleat Guide to Non-Morons” would require more than a page.
As usual we note a few things about President Biden’s State of the Eww address, and the latest Kamalaisms, which sound more and more like Yogi Berra in need of serious rehab. Does someone actually write her material, or have Republican operatives managed to infiltrate her speechwriting office?
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.
Some wise guy thinks this is funny:
Constructing a hypothetical perfect world government, could this be a reasonable addition to the US system?
Would a supreme court adjacent body that can be appealed to or review supreme court rulings help?
One that is only focused on natural rights violations?
Types of questions it would focus on: does this law or ruling effect the contract we have with gov or the consent we are able to give?
Did we/I hear it correctly that a DEI Provost has a salary of $1Million??
Please tell me I’m hallucinating.
Marsha McGriff, the Chief Diversity Officer, is black, so paying her an insane salary probably makes the University’s racial salary statistics look “better”, when it’s averaged in.
Beyond the fables of the 1619 Project, the tendency today is to attribute the invention of everything to POC. See my post for an example. https://ricochet.com/902987/gps-invention-stories/
Steve, I swear the last thing I listened to before coming to the podcast this afternoon was, “A Trick of the Tail.” Just goes to show that great minds think alike — and so do ours. :)
Just wait till September, the actual 50th anniversary of the release of “Selling England By the Pound,” and, the same week, Gentle Giant’s “In a Glass House.” Lucretia will kill me, but I’m going to do a BIG celebration.
As always, just here to catcall Lucretia.
Love it!
In the future you have to go into the “fiction” that is “consent” and how it is that people living today are somehow able to consent to live under a government founded over 200 years ago. And where does that leave the people who don’t give their “consent” presently?
The government founded over 200 years ago was setup in such a way that people could consent as the areas it was governing over did not (wasn’t supposed to, yeah yeah slavery and other examples, but think about the spirit not the letter), infringe on your natural rights. In it’s most pure form, you have the ability to be opted into that and consent. Fast forward to today, the ever growing government is infringing on our natural rights and for those that do not consent to those laws will be left in jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw
My comment was more general. @lucretia speaks as if the theory of consent is obvious, and obviously true, but I don’t think so. Especially given that today, as you point out, there is a significant number of people who clearly do not consent to live under the current regime which only superficially resembles the government at the time of the Founding. Isn’t that the whole reason she and Steve have initiated the Power Line University podcasts? Being born in a particular place under a particular form of government doesn’t equal consent.
I think we agree, my point of contention is that the theory IS obvious if applied to the spirit of the founding and its refinement over time. Clearer questions: At what point in the past has our ability to consent been lost? If that point hasn’t come yet, what areas are we about to loose the ability to consent? Are we past the threshold far enough to justify formal sedition or actions to reclaim rights lost? Specifically which rights and on what grounds?
My answers to these questions will be half informed and not as deeply grounded in political philosophy as I would like. So I too would like @lucretia to go over them more in-depth. I hope John is there when or if she answers questions like this so he can try and push back and she yells at him.
PS, my dream is for John Podhoretz to be a guest on Power Line so I can hear @lucretia yell at him.