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.
Since the Ricochet Podcast will be on hiatus next week, we’ve got a big episode to tide you over! We’re not only jam packed with our extra gab time, but with today’s guest Ze’ev Orenstein we head the birthplace of our grand Judeo-Christian tradition. His organization is excavating the City of David, making it possible for those currently celebrating Passover, Holy Week and Ramadan (or any curious visiter) the chance to walk through the awe-inspiring sites of their prophets, priests and kings.
The fellas also get into the disappointing elections in Chicago and Wisconsin; plus they touch on the outrageous culture war battles centered around Bud Light and Douglas Mackey.
Song of the Week: Hava Nagila
(The soundbite this week is Amb. John Bolton reacting to the Trump indictment on a CNN panel.)
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast 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.
Hava Nagila
It’s important to note that actual crime rates in places like New York City can’t be judged on the basis of crime/police reports, because so much of it isn’t even reported when people know that nothing will be done.
In the current times and situation, when someone like Rob Long claims that crime is down in New York, the only sensible response is rolling the eyes and laughing.
Peter, please finish your sentences. Don’t assume that everyone knows what you were going to say.
I agree with you but, unlike James who actually interacts with us on Ricochet, Rob will never respond to you about any of his malarkey.
Rob has popped up in the comments occasionally, but it’s pretty rare.
My main purpose, though, was to not leave his assertions un-debunked.
Rob is a co-founder. He rarely comments and he rarely contributes to the feeds. I guess maybe I expect too much from those asking for a conversation.
I think Rob, Jon, and Peter – but perhaps especially Rob – were very surprised at having founded a site where most of the membership is a good deal more conservative than they are.
That’s probably true but seems like even more of a reason to interact regularly and establish a connection with that membership. I actually appreciate that James gets into the threads.
Apparently Rob’s RINO-squishiness got him a lot of backlash in the past, and that’s why he mostly keeps off the site now.
You would think he would be used to it since he took so much crap from the left in Hollyweird
I’ll just say this one thing. Rob’s coming down to a meetup that all members were invited to attend. He likes the website and the members, but around 2017 he reasonably got the impression that a lot of people didn’t want him around.
It’s unfortunate. I think a lot of other people would like to see him pop in now and again, but it’s not normal for somebody to show up anywhere in order to bother people and get insulted. For all who like the show minus Rob’s Rino-ness, it might be best to skip the first half an hour or so.
If you think he took that much crap from the left in Hollyweird for being as minimally conservative as he is, imagine what happens to him here?
Rob’s showbiz stories and such are good, but when he starts claiming that parents who think parents should have the right to raise their children have to recognize that means other parents can take their kids to X-rated movies etc if they want to, he should expect maximum backlash.
Fair enough. I don’t agree with him on that one. Much as I think he’s wrong, I understand his point. I’m just very much on Team James in this case. But when we wrapped, the four (I’m pretty sure) of us there who don’t agree didn’t say anything mean to Rob. Mr. Lileks did well in countering during the show and we left it at that.
And it’s like…—as the kids say—remember how I said I was only gonna to say one thing? Now I’m saying two things… Social media sucks us in. But at least my experiences of “Hey! I-have-a-quibble-with-somebody-on-the-interwebs!” haven’t ever led to somebody really going after me. I’d bet there are a few on Ricochet who don’t care for my… let’s call it a ‘style’. The people who don’t like me here just ignore me. If most of the people here who commented on my efforts were mean to me for my ramblings, it’d unhealthy for me stick around.
Okay! I really am done! It’s Holy Week. I’ve got a few Christian things to do. I sincerely wish all who read this a Blessed Easter! (And Passover, et. cetera…)
I get that he might get more than the normal amount of flack but everybody that interacts in a number of posts gets hit. I have had conflicts with @kedavis on several posts and I have also agreed with @kedavis on several posts. Conflict happens in conversations. He co-founded this mess. I would think that he might be able to take the flack even if it isn’t a get together in the French Quarter.
Thank you, Mr. Block. I too wish you a blessed Easter.
The biggest problem with Rob’s argument could be that it’s maybe a/the (extreme) libertarian position, but it’s not conservative. Full libertarianism leads to arguments that – for example – “free exercise of religion” means that radical muslims in the US must be free to practice “honor killings” and female genital mutilation and murder of “apostates” etc. Which is not conservative either, and need not be taken seriously by anyone.
The podcasts are kind of a different world, as are magazine articles etc, because they have a definite end point. Chats here, and elsewhere, really don’t. It’s not even like two guys exchanging curses and then walking off side-by-side.
To be fair, Rob’s “position” around here is a lot more up-front than yours.
And we never do! It’s like any conversation with friends – you might agree on that, disagree on that, but that’s how it goes, and it’s certainly more interesting that sitting around agreeing about everything. It’s good to hear differing opinions from someone smart whose opinions you respect.
So where is the link to the virtual tour of the City of David?
Also, Rob’s example does not make sense. Getting assaulted in a subway station is a crime.
I don’t listen to the podcast very often, but it’s a slow day at work today so I put it on. Good stuff. Rob is sounding like a Biblical archeologist. I think his trip to the Holy Land had really impact on him. I hope to get their myself someday.
What Rob said was that crime had been higher in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Which is true. It has shot up over the last 5 years, but his point seemed to be that things have been even worse in the past. You’re dead on that crime statistics do have to be taken with a grain of salt (particularly property crime). Im in the seattle area and ive had multiple property crimes commited against me Ive let go, because officers flat out told me no prosecutor in the area would prosecute a breakin unless a large amount was taken. Murder rates are likely fairly dead on.
“The taint of Trump“? Really?
In the primary, Paul Vallas got 32.9%; while 38.4% went to Brandon Johnson and Lori Lightfoot, together.
Vallas’ defeat was baked in the cake.
That’s what I’d heard from some analysts too. The way-out-there side split its vote between Johnson and Lightfoot. If were talking guilt by association, DeSantis could be thrown in there too. The police organization that endorsed Vallas invited DeSantis to speak to their organization the week before the election.
According to Jussie Smollet, Chicago is MAGA country so the MAGA candidate could have done well.
I completely agree, James. But are you not, these days, at all sick of the use of the word smart as the most meaningful measure for everything? I personally am way over it. Many people among the smart set (Rob not included) have shown themselves to be utter loons. I’m looking for some humility, wisdom, especially today. FWIW, I’m not offended by Rob’s view of the crime rate in NYC. Maybe he’s right, though it seems unlikely. What’s hard for me to believe, though, is that he much cares, or is bothered by, what his critics of the Ricochet podcast think or say. He’s way too smart for that.
So on the argument regarding the taking of children to watch drag shows, I thought I’d add a perspective from Alaska.
In Fairbanks there was a stripper joint that lost its liqueur license. They did reopen without the license, and further, they hired strippers that were 18-21 years old, which they couldn’t when they had the license. It’s now closed, but they did remain in business for quite a few years.
So discussion point for the next podcast, since Rob probably won’t be reading this, would Rob allow children in a stripper bar without a liqueur license?
If not, why not extend that prohibition to other suggestive sexual events?
The main problem seems to be Rob confusing Conservative with Libertarian.
There are many manifestations of brain-power – smart, clever, brainy, intelligent, etc. I think I used smart as shorthand for the qualities I admire, which include curiosity, confidence married with willingness to be wrong, maybe, intellectual restlessness, verbal skill, a grasp of the general scape and scope of human history. That’s a lot of the folk here at Ricochet, and that’s Rob, who is simply one of the more interesting persons I’ve ever met.
He’s a good guy with a keen mind. And I say that as someone who has about 357 necessary segues ruined by his clumsy intercessions.
This is tangential to your point, but when I lived in Wichita, I was surprised by the radio commercial for a strip club. You could be 18 to enter the full nude side or 21 for the topless side. I assumed there was a local ordinance that didn’t allow full nudity to be combined with alcohol sales.