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.
Some weeks, we have to hunt hard for topics. Other weeks, well, they rain down like a monsoon. The latter describes this week and to provide an umbrella we’ve got the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s White House correspondent Debra J. Saunders on the political topics (and a bit on San Francisco) and The Skeptical Environmentalist himself, Bjørn Lomborg, who at this moment, is the world’s second most famous Scandinavian authority in climate. Also, a new poll question (answer it!) and Lileks make a cameo appearance to award Ricochet member Kevin Creighton the highly coveted Lileks Post of The Week.
Music from this week’s show: How Soon Is Now by The Smiths
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.
That’s odd. I figure just the opposite. But I don’t think music is automatically better just by adding more fuzz/distortion/whatever, and I appreciate being able to understand the lyrics without a lot of guess-work.
I also prefer the Letters To Cleo version of “Dangerous Type,” although I grew up in the 60s and 70s but I never had a fixation on Rick Ocasek/The Cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvaSw63uc8
Oh, and:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGljE1-ERos
You know, 2013…When Ms. Thunberg was 10.
Johnson was a Democrat.
Email Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy and tell them to get out there and support Trump before the cameras. I’m sick of seeing only a couple of GOP reps doing all the work by themselves.
Sorry, How Soon Was Then was the title of Kevin Creighton’s post, not the song. I fixed it. Thanks for the heads up.
And yes, those cover versions are weak.
The famous paleontologist and science writer, Stephen Jay Gould, a man of the Left incidentally, used to say that changes in rainfall patterns and higher sea level related to global warming are a serious matter.
But, he continued, when a paleontologist hears global warming doomsday scenarios, he smiles. Because he knows how warm the Earth was in some of its most verdant periods!
The original version by The Smiths is obviously and objectively better.
Then you’ll love this. It’s complete unintelligible gibberish, and even the people who think they know what the lyrics are, don’t agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xBfF82BMsk
The greatest self-loathing song about loneliness ever.
Never have seen that show. Seems to be well-regarded by people who watched tv in the 70s.
It was pretty good. Sadly, a lot of that stuff isn’t on youtube at all, or if it is, it’s really messed with for one reason or another. Put in a smaller frame, or sped up or slowed down… Maybe because they figure it’ll keep it from being noticed by the networks and taken down.
But anyway, give this a try:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6tsgrr
Followed by episode 2:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6u7r4v
Those both seem to be slowed down, but we do what we can.
Oh, AND reversed. Stupid dailymotion.
OK, I finally got to the end of the podcast and heard that little exchange. What a ridiculously condescending, downright asinine question to ask – “what do people think when you use a word like ‘erudite’ in Fargo?”
I’ve lost a lot of respect for Mr Robinson. That’s the kind of thing that makes people really hate coastal elites [a category that I think we can fairly apply to him.]
James laughed it off with a lot more grace than I would have been able to muster.
Thanks MWM – I was beginning to think I’d imagined it. Yes indeed, James handled it with grace. Better man than me …
Something along the lines of, “I don’t know what they think. But I would certainly never patronize them with a query …”
Folks:
It. Was. A. Joke.
Occasionally, the guys say something because they want to provoke what we hope will be a funny and entertaining reaction. James knows this. It’s the underlying basis of the interrupting of the segues.
Maybe this one didn’t work. Fair enough. Do 467 hours of anything and you’re going to have a a few bits fall on their face. That’s showbiz. But it’s not some grand indictment.
was it?
Yes, it was.
It was an insensitive joke, but Peter is a sweetheart who would never intentionally offend anyone.
This is a correct statement.
Well, for goodness’ sake, put in a historical note.
I sort of hate when so-called conservatives show disrespect to the President as though they were his betters. Oh, how smart you must think you are. Here’s the deal, guys. 99% of the people who listen and read are as bright and accomplished as you are. Your smug dismissal of Trump, and the implied assumption that you could do better, is disheartening to me (again).
Uh, the part of the show we are discussing had nothing to do with President Trump.
Uh, I think it’s obvious he’s talking about the show – not “the part of the show” you are discussing
OK, then please identify for me who on the show suggested that the audience is not as “bright and accomplished” as the listeners? And who “smugly dismissed Trump” and who implied that “they could do [his job] better”? Must have missed all of those moments in the 3 or 4 times I have listened to this show. If it’s not too much trouble, I’d also appreciate the time code on when exactly those moments occurred. Would like to play them on this week’s show.
I’ll leave that up to @Milkchaser, as it was his comment.
My comment to you? You were being dismissive of @milkchaser with your “Uh, the part of the show we are discussing had noting to do with President Trump” comment.
How do you know what part of the show @milkchaser was referring to?
You need to spend more time in the comments, @blueyeti and try to keep up. We often have several different issues being discussed at the same time. @milkchaser quoted no one; it was obvious he was making a general observation.
Uh, just my two cents.
Yes, that is what I meant. I had not yet read the comments – just listened to the snarky disparaging comments by Rob & Peter at the beginning of the show.
I wasn’t being dismissive. Despite it being obvious to you, I honestly could not tell what he was referring to. But fair enough — I’ve now addressed both possibilities and neither one of them makes much sense to me.
I tend to err on the side of leaving the discussion to the members. The comment section is for them, not me.
It is just me, or does any written comment prefaced by “um” or “uh” come across as dismissive?
Another insider comment tip: bad form to go back and edit a comment after it’s been posted without adding a note that you’ve done so. I quoted your entire comment (at the time) above; now it appears different.
OK, I just re-listened to the first 10 minutes of the show (you can listen for yourself at the top of this page). I did not hear any “snarky comments” describing the President. Rob and Peter both make a few about Democrats, but I’m guessing you have no issue with those comments,
Peter describes the transcript as “ambiguous” and that there’s no obvious quid pro quo — “nothing even approaching that,” he says. Peter also clearly makes the point that the controversy over the so-called “favor” Trump asks for is a big nothingburger (I’m paraphrasing that). Yes, he suggests that Trump speaks a bit crudely, but he means that Trump is direct and does not beat around the bush the way career diplomats and bureaucrats do. Not that Trump is a crude person. Come on.
Peter also describes Trump’s conversation as “ill-judged” but of course what he means is that perhaps Trump should not be so forward and direct when he knows a dozen people are listening in on the call.
So again, I ask you: what are the “snarky disparaging comments”? Please provide specific quotes as to what you are referring to. I’m very interested to know.