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, we mix up the line-up with Conservatarian guest hosts Jon Gabriel and Stephen Miller. They’re joined by author Tom Nichols (his new book The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters is a must read) and our old pal James Delingpole who lets loose about Milo and CPAC in the way only he can. Also, weird goings on in North Korea and next stop, Trappist-1.
Public service announcement: if you’re not a member of Ricochet and enjoy this podcast, be one of the 1,500 and join today.
Music from this week’s podcast: You’ve Got To Stand For Somethin’ by John Mellencamp
The ALL NEW opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps! And leave a review too!
It’s the 1st Amendment, @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.
Regarding Delingpole’s “why are people still talking about conservatism?” question, I think the answer should be obvious if he reflected for a moment. Christians discussing Hinduism are people discussing a religion, but Christians discussing Christianity are people discussing what they believe is “The Truth”, and “Christianity” is just shorthand for the central tenants of the faith. In that regard, for us “conservatives”, we still believe whatever we mean by “conservatism” is “The Truth”, or, as it relates to government, “central principles of good government.”
Now even more than the many different versions of Christianity, many people have many different principles they’re referring to when they refer to “conservatism.” Principles shouldn’t change when election results don’t go our way, but they should change if reality proves them false. There is also the first paragraph of Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative to consider:
I find a lot of discussion of “what is conservatism now” boils down to “what are the problems of today, and what are the solutions?”
Is one of the good questions to ask in regards to “what is conservatism now” the question of “What are we trying to conserve?”
Yes
Trade does not benefit enough people anymore due to the structure of the financial system. That is the point. The GOP’s continual harping on this bromide just makes everything worse. Conservatism for a disbursed prosperity is impossible right now.
I’m not mad at anyone here. If people want to challenge me (without facts sometimes LOL) that’s fine and I like it. I’m mad about the human suffering and the permanent damage it’s doing to the political system. Also, I don’t care if anyone listens. I mostly shell out to support the podcasts.
I pay for hedge fund analysis of this stuff and trust me what’s coming up will be the worst thing since 1929.
Just to be clear, I’ve heard a bunch of interviews of Avik Roy. I’m pretty much on board with the way he thinks. We have so much socialism and so much misallocated capital creating a very low GDP that the government can’t just step away from many things. This is a central planning disaster.
For example, it’s very clear to me that the ACA is a deliberate Cloward and Piven strategy that is working perfectly. It was built to self destruct after it destroyed much of the health insurance industry made a bunch of people dependent on it. The only problem is it worked too fast. It is absolutely shameful that Fox news made Ezekiel Emanuel a paid contributor.
For the record the easiest way to understand the ACA is just look at the Wikipedia of the Swiss insurance system. The ACA is the same thing with REGRESSIVE TAXATION and a bunch of self destruct mechanisms. Gruber, Emanuel and Obama are effectively criminals. Terrible.
You know that Nick Eberstat article that has a bazillion downloads right now? David Stockman knows the way out of that mess.
I came to make pretty much this same comment, but Quake Voter states if better than I could have.
I’ll just add that Obamacare was designed by experts. So was our Iraq policy of the last 15 years.
Experts are great when it comes to hard sciences like engineering. Soft sciences and public policy, not so much.
Well.
That was an episode…
This put me in mind of a little statement I make to the new game wardens when I explain my role as a chaplain. “There are certain, specific situations in which I have authority. It comes from my education and from years of experience doing my job, and from the trust placed in me by the command staff and the wardens. My authority means that when faced with one of those specific situations—for example, a death notification needs to be carried out— I can say “we’re going to do X now,” and we’ll do X. But if I happen to be accompanying you in the field, and you say “Kate, stay in the truck,” I will stay in the truck.”
Exactly what I thought. Delingpole needed to actually think before opening his mouth. Also it would be nice if he would stop with the constant stream of logical fallacies when attacking Trump critics.
I’m a little late to this party, but am I the only one that missed the memo on what happened to RFD / London Calling podcast and why James is now podcasting independently? Is this a Derbyshire momentTM?
I don’t think anything was said about it. I just figured that Breitbart is where we works, so he probably wanted to use his podcast to drive traffic over there instead of here. No paycheck here.
Many podcasts have quietly ceased production.