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 on The Ricochet Podcast, social conservatives make their case to Rob, Haley Barbour makes his case for a new party coalition, Victor Davis Hanson is optimistic about the future and schools us in the finer points of pistachio farming, Lileks defends cruising, and Peter is under the weather. Still, it’s a sweet day for a podcast.
Music from this week’s show:
- It’s A Beautiful Morning by The New Rascals
Sign up today for Hillsdale College’s new FREE online American Heritage course. Go to Ricochet.com/Hillsdale
Our thanks to the sunny EJHill.
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.
You can get both ears full of more Peter Robinson at Uncommon Knowledge. Where am I supposed to find more Lileks? He hasn’t done a full hour of Nothern Alliance since the end of December 2011.
It also wouldn’t be as much of a concern if not for the problem that, due to how he’s miced or whatever, I can turn down the treble all the way and Peter’s voice could still cut glass. In addition to giving me headaches.
Lileks defends cruising. STOP THE PRESSES.
Rob wonders why, 68 years after the end of WWII, we still have bases in Germany and Japan. It’s called a supply line. There’s no hot spot on the face of the earth that our military can reach on a long term basis without forward bases to stage from.
Germany helps us reach the Middle East and Africa, Japan all of Asia. You can’t do it all off of Navy ships.
For some reason Yeti disapproved of my musical selection for the close.
Rob had it exactly backwards. Take all soldiers out of Afghanistan. Keep the regional bases, like Italy and Japan, while consolidating into one base per region.
I appreciate the preference of maintaining an excessive fighting force over playing catch-up with training when force is needed. But surely we can afford to cut more than just research contracts. Personnel cuts should begin with the bureaucrats.
Barbour said asians went for Obama by a significant margin but voted mostly Republican before. He took this as evidence that Republicans should be “reaching out” beyond their base, but I don’t see how he reaches that conclusion. How can he propose a solution without first understanding the problem? Unless we can explain why asians suddenly swung Left, that phenomenon is evidence of nothing.
If Republicans could count on the asian voting bloc in the recent past, did that change in 2008 or 2010? If the former, then it probably has more to do with Obama specifically than with Party preferences.
Before I listen to this, please reassure me that “Lileks defends cruising” doesn’t mean “cruising” in an early 80’s, Al Pacino-type of way.
I just listened to the first 10 minutes of the podcast (will listen to the rest after work). If I could just take a moment to defend my thesis by summarizing all 1500 words in a few sentences.
My concern was the distancing from social conservatives, not the disagreement with them. It seems to me that many folks are very quick to point to “the crazies” in our own group in an attempt to throw the weak to the wolves (forgetting the fact that the rabid press is calling us all crazy, anyhow). This seems wrongheaded, and it also seems to do far more harm than good.
If you disagree with socons on abortion, make it about something you DO agree on (roe v. wade is wrong on federalist grounds); if you disagree on evolution, make it about freedom (school choice and less federal control over our school systems); if you disagree on gay marriage, make it about government intrusion (the solution is not expansion of government and further intrusion in to private lives). For the record, re: gay marriage, I think we grossly understate the religious liberty aspects.
James, Rob, Peter: I think most of these issues did come out in the comments, eventually. But it does take some effort to work through all of them.
Law nerd correction: Blackmun wrote Roe, not Brennan.
I mentioned that in my post! :)
But it’s a good look, n’est-ce pas?
No, this is the type of cruising James is defending:
EJHill, oui oui! He’s got nuthin’ on Rob Halford.
And my concerns have abated. I will listen.
Yes, but it’s worth reading the whole thread. It really is interesting and enlightening. And your summary above is also excellent. And pretty convincing, too.
Thanks for the notice, guys. I will be able to listen tomorrow afternoon. Tonight it’s invoicing. Bis auf Weiteres.
Thanks. I had the feeling as soon as I’d said it that I’d goofed, but I didn’t want to stop the action.
We are aware of the slow page load times and are in the process of addressing it. In terms of the podcast archive page, the show are listed chronologically here, not but title.
Finally, lack of Lileks on this particular show was due to the fact that he fell off the line for about 10 minutes prior to Haley joining the show. But he was so darn polite about it, I didn’t know for several minutes (to be fair, I was also busy getting the Gov. on the line and was not listening to the show at that point).
P.S. I’ve been trying to get James to host his own show for a while now. Maybe you’ll have more pull with him than me.
VDH mentioned that CA Gov. Brown is taking bows for revenue pouring into CA coffers in January. On January 19th it was revealed that what actually happened was a windfall from wealthy people adjusting their portfolios at the end of 2012 to get ready for the federal tax increases coming January 1, 2013. On the 15th of January the final quarterly payment came in and was, in aggregate, much larger than projected.
Of course, the bad news for CA and her silly Governor is that it was a one-time anomaly and will be largely removed in April.
Zerohedge has the story on California’s Budget Miracle Mirage.
California dreaming.
Why not stay there & send them a fat bill each year for providing for their defense?
We maintain our security interests and make them pick up part of the tab.
I love that Victor’s “optimistic” article about California is based on the idea that it will take longer than previously feared to collapse on itself.
I feel so much better.
Based on what I’ve been seeing, a new website setup would be very welcome. For some reason, the current deal is very slow to load pages even on cable speed connection. Maybe because of how existing comments are handled or something. Or maybe the servers aren’t up to the load.
It also seems like a good idea to organize the show date/podcast pages by date rather than just by title of the show, such as http://ricochet.com/podcasts/ricochet-podcast/It-s-A-Beautiful-Day in the current case. Naming a podcast shouldn’t have to be a requirement in order to get it posted, and using dates would allow for pre-posting some details and maybe getting some advance comments/questions to ask, before the ‘show’ is made and a name/title assigned.
Meanwhile I’m reconsidering my subscription as a whole. If I wanted to hear this much Peter Robinson talking and asking all the questions etc, I would be getting Uncommon Knowledge instead of Ricochet. A more balanced approach in this area would also be welcome. The only reason I subscribed at all was because of James.
On the plus side, at least the tap-tap-tapping/thump-thump-thumping has abated, however temporarily.
Then we are at an impasse! Less Peter Robinson is a deal breaker for me.
I’ve exchanged private emails with James in the past, but he’s so darn busy I can understand his reluctance to take on more projects.
For that matter, at least for me it wouldn’t even take him hosting his own show. Joining the Goldberg/Long/Podhoretz podcasts or Steyn/Goldberg/Long, at least occasionally, would be a miracle to me.
Finally, lack of Lileks on this particular show was due to the fact that he fell off the line for about 10 minutes prior to Haley joining the show. But he was so darn polite about it, I didn’t know for several minutes (to be fair, I was also busy getting the Gov. on the line and was not listening to the show at that point).
P.S. I’ve been trying to get James to host his own show for a while now. Maybe you’ll have more pull with him than me. ·13 minutes ago
I think part of the website speed problem might be the ads. At least the way the site works now, you can’t do anything else – not even scroll up/down – until the ads decide which ones they’re going to show me. And that can take a while.
On the plus side though, James has been doing the non-radio-aired Aftershow of Hugh Hewitt’s show with non-producer “Generalissimo” Duane Patterson, most Fridays. That’s a treat.
Haley is 100% right about the moronic decision by the Romney camp to not attack back.
The way Rob describes his view on same-sex marriage, it doesn’t come across as “this is the principle I believe in and here’s why,” it’s more like “here is why I am following the current fashion/fad at least until it changes.” It appears that he has more conviction regarding abortion, but there’s no reason not to have it about marriage too.
Some principles are pretty simple to explain, even in what is supposed to be a “free” (but that doesn’t mean “anything goes”) society. The purpose of business is not to provide employment. The purpose of education is not to have lifetime job security and self-satisfaction for teachers. And the social purpose of marriage is not to have two (or more) people feel happy, loved, and whatever else regardless of their equipment. It is to PRODUCE and raise children in a stable environment.
Someone pointed out on another recent show that idealism says “if it’s (theoretically, ideologically) right, it must work.” (but it really doesn’t.) Pragmatism says “if it works, it must be right.” Same-sex marriage is the former. Traditional marriage is the latter.
Another good discussion topic for next week might be Rich Lowry’s recent column about the comprehensive HHS study showing that pre-K education doesn’t produce the claimed results for most children. Once Rob has read it, anyway.
I think it’s not just a matter of the Left persuading people that gay marriage is ok. Rob indicated the Left had been successful at that. I think it may be more accurate to say the Left has been successful at convincing people that opposition to gay marriage is equal to hateful bigotry. Someone can be “for” something because it seems wrong on some level to be “against” it.