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.
This week, a discussion of the many wonders of the universe, from Donald Trump’s candidacy, to AEI president Arthur Brook’s vision for the conservative heart (buy his book, The Conservative Heart: How to Build a Fairer, Happier, and More Prosperous America), and of course, Pluto. On that topic, let’s just say that Rob and James have a more romantic outlook than Peter.
Music from this week’s episode:
Space Cowboy by Steve Miller Band
The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
To infinity and beyond, EJHill.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!
Also: Please take our listener survey!
Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Sponsors!
For a limited time The Great Courses has a Special offer for Ricochet listeners. Order any of these 4 Business & Presentation courses – for just $9.95. Go to thegreatcourses.com/RICOCHET
This podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, got Harrys.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
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.
A little note: I saw the link to the Podcast Survey earlier today before I listened to the flagship, and clicked on the link just to see what the survey looked like. I couldn’t tell how long it was from the first page, so I closed it, thinking I’d come back tonight when I had more time. Now when I click the link it tells me “thanks, you already took the survey, only one per member.”
So you’ll never know my opinion . . .
I suppose I should fish all of these out and do some writing on the issue, given how it seems to animate me. This isn’t the time nor is it the proper forum, suffice it to say 1. it’s always and everywhere to do with religiosity and 2. the only reason I get flustered at all is because the body Peter’s work is exceptional and I wouldn’t be without it.
And because we’re now officially talking past a man who is active on this thread…
Peter, I once sent you a note stating that your work on Uncommon Knowledge was no less important to me than Firing Line had been to my father and to those of his generation. That sentiment, which must now be extended to include your work here at Ricochet and elsewhere, holds more truth today than it did when I first expressed it.
But…man…sometimes…
For the record, I back fixing Social Security with a trebuchet.
My wife knows the feeling, Forrest, believe me. But thanks for sticking with me anyway. That makes two of you.
I thought Peter was hitting on an important point with Brooks when he asked the more practical questions about how this will actually work in the real world. Brooks said that survey research shows on-the-fence voters will lean GOP if the candidate uses the positive messages on poverty and other economic issues. I was curious as to whether those questions included a generic republican/democrat or a real candidate. I’m also curious as to whether these messages are drivers of how they will actually vote. It does you no good to win an argument that won’t determine how anyone votes.
I think it’s worth it for the campaigns to test those arguments with the real candidates and see whether there’s a real opportunity.
He he he – I had a teenie tiny part in launching that probe.
you pressed the button?
If I can add one more thing about the awesomeness of visiting Pluto…
Not only is it amazing that humans have the ability to calculate a scenario where, from a moving object, we can launch a thing over 4 billion miles to tag another moving object smaller than our moon a decade later. But isn’t it also amazing that the universe itself is so orderly? So orderly that we can plan with great certainty where a rock 4 billion miles from us will be in 10 years. That in itself is incredible.
I’m coming late to this podcast, but I have a few responses to it.
One, the devils-are-in-the-details problem regarding Brooks’s wonderful happy warrior stance is his phrase: those who are reachable. Maybe there are independent-minded folks who are reachable, but I worry they will be put off (unfairly but put off, nonetheless) by the religiosity of his message, even on income inequality.
Two, as I tangentially grasp the extremely weird world of quantum physics, experience at that level, where neither Newtonian physics nor relativity works, has everything to do with interaction of the viewer and probabilities. For those of us who respect religious people but have absolutely no interest in the church–because of its fixation on society rather than the individual, interacting soul–viewing a planet that is so very different from our world yet so similar to who we are as living beings makes me believe there is no oblivion, even though there is death and perhaps an end to human consciousness. I find that extremely heartening and a reason to believe in god.
Finally, on the Iran deal, I agree with Fred Cole theoretically, but morally I’m grossed out. Negotiating with the mullahs–who hang homosexual men in public, arrest women for what they wear, and have been responsible for killing hundreds of Americans–while clearly not pressuring them to release not even one of our four hostages is, to me, tantamount to Stalin shaking hands with Hitler.
How cool!
Trump.
On the Greek Tax comments. I am reminded of a cartoon I saw many (many,many) years ago, a bunch of guys sitting around a poker table, and one of them is saying “Talk about your government waste and inefficiency. I paid my taxes years ago, and they still keep sending me the forms every January.”
Good show , James you need an understanding savy producer to show case your audio talent, glad you are coming to the fore in this podcast.
I would tune in for the segues alone. Just once I want rob to delay his appreciation.
Peter,
Neanderthals Unite!!!
Bless you
Bigfoot
Ok, lots in this podcast. Starting with the Iran deal, the problem with assuming that the youth will eventually rise up is that when they do, in the Middle East, it almost always seems to be in favor of more Islam, more radicalism, more order. Name one Arab Spring country that became better and more free and Western? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Iran always seems to have a very visible set of youth that protest and claim they want westernization. And they’re always swamped by far greater numbers of people that revere Khomeini. We also hear a version of this argument when it comes to Asian countries and trade (“Sell them more stuff, and they’ll revolt!”). Hasn’t happened. Ain’t going to. If anything, Chinese youth are even more patriotic and hostile to the West, and are on the front lines of things like China’s cyber war against the West. They like the way the government is going. If you hold your breath waiting for a youth revolution in Iran, you’re gonna die of asphyxiation. Ain’t happening. That makes a bad deal worse when you have the kind of assumptions that Cole was making. As Rob said, too clever by half.
As for Feinstein, anyone want odds on her direction? Because my money says that, between Israel and loyalty to the Democratic Party, she’ll choose the Democrats. No Democrat has had the stones to kill an Obama deal yet. She won’t either.
On Brooks’ arguments on reaching out to the poor: he’s partly right, but he’s seriously wrong to discount a targeting of the white poor. That’s the biggest target of opportunity for the GOP. We’ve seen time and time again, that no matter the outreach, going after the minority poor seems to yield precious little fruit for the GOP. By all means, try, but don’t ignore the far more “gettable” voting block while trying.
Pluto: I was really excited about this one. I’m a big fan of the robotic probe programs for solar system exploration. It’s manned space that I’m far more doubtful about (I think Buzz Aldrin’s “Get your *** to Mars” campaign is romantic nonsense. Mars ain’t the Moon). If anything, I was disappointed in New Horizons’ El Cheapo approach… one small device that flies by Pluto snapping a few pics on its way to take pics of barren rocks in the Kuiper Belt. Because of Pluto’s looooooong orbit, we’re going to lose a lot of opportunities in the coming years as it goes way out .Still think we should have dedicated an orbiting probe to really study it for this reason.
That said, I found Peter’s “The Universe by way of Camus” comments hilarious. My children were wondering why their father was laughing so hard with his headphones on. Not everyone is a space nerd, Peter. It’s fine.
Most people aren’t space nerds, not by a long shot.
Not by a shot to Pluto?
I adore Arthur Brooks, I really do. He’s smart, articulate, interesting, charming, handsome, and well-dressed. I am so very glad he’s on our side.
But am I the only one that finds his whole Oprah/Joel-Osteen-of-the-right schtick (The Conservative Heart? The Secret to Happiness? Barf.) completely off-putting? Is there a critical mass of people for whom this approach is persuasive? It just makes my skin crawl.
You’re not the only one. The whole touchy-feely approach to politics…. bleh.
Well they should be. They should be.
Please pardon the tardiness of my response, John – you went here, my brain melted (again) and I had to spend the next couple of days mopping it back up and stuffing it back inside my skull (no mean feat).
Epistemological humility should be a high-standard in our politics (indeed, in our culture) – but the anti-inquiry, anti-knowledge reaction the political right too-often has in response to a decided lack thereof on the part of the political left carries an alarming and contradictory arrogance all its own.
Again, in Peter’s case, the dismissiveness of achievement, the lack of curiosity, the certainty that we are alone, etc. – these seem to stem from a deep and abiding religiosity that permeate an otherwise outstanding body of work. These questions we ask have either been answered (how such a position can be considered “humble” is beyond me), or are the wrong questions entirely.
The whole thing just makes me sad, frankly.