Ricochet’s only married podcasters finally make their triumphant return to the interwebs and turn in a doozy of a show. Listen in as they (or more accurately, Mollie) experiences CPAC under the influence (we wish we would have thought of that), a not-to-be-missed debate on whether the Republican party is going the way of the Whigs, Rob Portman’s switch on SSM, the RNC report that ignores the elephant in the room, Sarah Palin’s rack, the problem with the SoCons, The Fight of The Week®, and yes, Mark’s hygiene. 

Subscribe to this podcast by following the instructions here. Direct link is here

Subscribe to The Hemingways in iTunes (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 iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 41 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Israel P. Inactive

    If you use hand sanitizer but don’t wash your hands, don’t you have dead bacteria on your hands? Is this good?

    • #1
    • March 21, 2013, at 5:41 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. The (apathetic) King Prawn Inactive

    Mollie is on fire this week. Huzzah!

    Mollie, you should write more from your libertarian perspective. You are very talented at communicating libertarianism without coming off as an anti-social kook.

    • #2
    • March 21, 2013, at 7:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Barkha Herman Member

    Mollie – your comment about gays cannot make babies hence they cannot marry made me sad.

    • #3
    • March 21, 2013, at 7:41 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. The (apathetic) King Prawn Inactive

    Hand washing, the proper way. Most people (especially those who scowl so sternly at those who skip it) never actually wash their hands. They put on a show. It’s pretense.

    • #4
    • March 21, 2013, at 7:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Mollie Hemingway Contributor
    Barkha Herman: Mollie – your comment about gays cannot make babies hence they cannot marry made me sad. · 37 minutes ago

    You mis-state what I said.

    I do wonder why our society is so weird about not acknowledging how babies are made, though.

    I sometimes think we all need a big Birds and the Bees course or something.

    • #5
    • March 21, 2013, at 8:22 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Barkha Herman Member
    Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
    Barkha Herman: Mollie – your comment about gays cannot make babies hence they cannot marry made me sad. · 37 minutes ago

    You mis-state what I said.

    I do wonder why our society is so weird about not acknowledging how babies are made, though.

    I sometimes think we all need a big Birds and the Bees course or something. · 46 minutes ago

    I will re-listen to the podcast to make sure and try to quote verbatim. The issue is not where babies come from – but whether of not only baby making is the only grounds for marriage.

    • #6
    • March 21, 2013, at 9:11 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Done Contributor

    I love that Mollie doubled down on the soap vs hand sanitizer debate.

    Oh, the political commentary was also good.

    • #7
    • March 21, 2013, at 10:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Hartmann von Aue Member

    Dear Hemingways- Mollie is right about the Republican party and Mark is wrong. 

    Barka H.- Mollie is right about marriage- in every essential. Marriage always has been and always will be about the production and raising of children- other considerations are very distantly secondary at best. And no, having an emotional attachment to a person who indulges in a particular life-denying, inherently sterile, inherently superficial and death-affirming corruption of sexuality does not change the moral nature of the act. I have a relative who went to prison for arson. This did not change my view on the morality of burning one’s own business down in a case of insurance fraud.

    • #8
    • March 21, 2013, at 10:56 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Peter Meza Member

    Re: Coalition of Social Conservatives (SC) and Libertarians (L) = winning formula.

    This is only true if this coalition is greater in number than the number of people who are disgusted by this formulation (Libertarians who hate Social Conservaties, and Social Conservaties who hate Libertarians, for example) and stay at home (SAH) and do not vote:

    SC + L > SAH

    After the last election isn’t this conclusion at least arguable?

    • #9
    • March 21, 2013, at 11:05 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. Barkha Herman Member
    Hartmann von Aue: Dear Hemingways- Mollie is right about the Republican party and Mark is wrong. 

    Barka H.- Mollie is right about marriage- in every essential. Marriage always has been and always will be about the production and raising of children- other considerations are very distantly secondary at best. And no, having an emotional attachment to a person who indulges in a particular life-denying, inherently sterile, inherently superficial and death-affirming corruption of sexuality does not change the moral nature of the act. I have a relative who went to prison for arson. This did not change my view on the morality of burning one’s own business down in a case of insurance fraud. 

     I have a friend who had uterine cancer, and hence cannot have any children. Would you say that she cannot get married?

    I have a couple of gay friends who have adopted a little girl. Would you say they are better candidates for marriage?

    • #10
    • March 21, 2013, at 11:21 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Mollie Hemingway Contributor
    Barkha Herman

     I have a friend who had uterine cancer, and hence cannot have any children. Would you say that she cannot get married?

    I have a couple of gay friends who have adopted a little girl. Would you say they are better candidates for marriage? · 32 minutes ago

    What is marriage?

    • #11
    • March 21, 2013, at 11:56 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Joseph Stanko Member

    Mollie, I suspect you are giving Rob Portman entirely too much credit.

    You seem to take his story at face value, and than wonder this his conviction is so weak that his son’s revelation caused him to change his views. Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but I presume he saw the latest poll numbers, saw the way the wind was blowing, decided to change his position, and then figured his recent experience with his son would give him a plausible cover story. It’s an excuse, a rationalization, nothing more.

    • #12
    • March 21, 2013, at 11:57 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Mollie Hemingway Contributor
    Barkha Herman
    Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
    Barkha Herman

     I have a friend who had uterine cancer, and hence cannot have any children. Would you say that she cannot get married?

    I have a couple of gay friends who have adopted a little girl. Would you say they are better candidates for marriage? · 32 minutes ago

    What is marriage? · 18 minutes ago

    A special type of contract that restricts who can enter into it, and awards people in it with special privileges related to inheritance, taxation and immigration. · 3 hours ago

    That is sufficiently meaningless. It could refer to husband and wife, sisters, fathers and sons, close friends, same-sex partners, etc.

    You need to work on a better definition, I think. One that has *much* more meaning and exists in a world that at least acknowledges and seeks to relate to the ancient and universal definition of marriage (e.g., union of man and woman in commitment built around conjugal sex).

    • #13
    • March 22, 2013, at 3:39 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Benjamin Glaser Inactive

    Ditto to Mollie in #17.

    • #14
    • March 22, 2013, at 5:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. genferei Member

    As to hand sanitizer: the inevitable xkcd reference.

    • #15
    • March 22, 2013, at 5:53 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. billy Inactive
    Barkha Herman
    Joseph Stanko

    Because nothing is more romantic than that moment when a man goes down on one knee, gazes into the eyes of his beloved, and asks the timeless question: “would you enter into a contract with me so that I can put you on my employer’s insurance plan and we can both save money on our income taxes?” · 30 minutes ago

    If it is the romantic moment when a man goes down on one knee, gazes into the eyes of his beloved, and asks the timeless question, then why the restriction? Is the suggestion that romance is only between heterosexuals?

    The claim (at least in my interpretation) is that the only point of marriage is kids. Perhaps all marriages should be shotgun weddings – this way we can avoid frivolous marriages. · 5 hours ago

    I could agree to this.

    • #16
    • March 22, 2013, at 6:12 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Ed G. Member
    The King Prawn: Hand washing, the proper way. Most people (especially those who scowl so sternly at those who skip it) never actually wash their hands. They put on a show. It’s pretense. · 11 hours ago

    Edited 11 hours ago

    I’m confused by this passage from the link:

    Keep in mind that antibacterial soap is no more effective at killing germs than is regular soap. Using antibacterial soap may even lead to the development of bacteria that are resistant to the product’s antimicrobial agents — making it harder to kill these germs in the future.

    Doesn’t the second sentence contradict the first?

    • #17
    • March 22, 2013, at 7:19 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Christopher Bowen Inactive

     

    • #18
    • March 22, 2013, at 8:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Mollie Hemingway Contributor
    Christopher Bowen: Agree 100% with Mollie on the soap thing. In our quixotic attempt to sterilize ourselves, the bacteria always win. Hence, superbugs resistant to our best antibiotics. You know how doctors are always squirting that foam Steris on their hands from those dispensers on the wall? Do not do the same. Only the nastiest stuff lives on the tip of those things. · 3 minutes ago

    My favorite thing about this podcast is that my husband thinks he won that fight.

    • #19
    • March 22, 2013, at 8:19 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. Barkha Herman Member
    Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

    That is sufficiently meaningless. It could refer to husband and wife, sisters, fathers and sons, close friends, same-sex partners, etc.

    You need to work on a better definition, I think. One that has *much* more meaning and exists in a world that at least acknowledges and seeks to relate to the ancient and universal definition of marriage (e.g., union of man and woman in commitment built around conjugal sex). · 17 hours ago

    Give me your definition of marriage.

    • #20
    • March 22, 2013, at 9:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. Mollie Hemingway Contributor
    Barkha Herman
    That is sufficiently meaningless. It could refer to husband and wife, sisters, fathers and sons, close friends, same-sex partners.

    You need to work on a better definition,. One that has *much* more meaning and exists in a world that at least acknowledges and seeks to relate to the ancient and universal definition of marriage (e.g., union of man and woman in commitment built around conjugal sex). ·

    Give me your definition of marriage.

    This works:

    Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the be‐ havioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its in‐ herent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children con‐ tributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.1

    • #21
    • March 22, 2013, at 9:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. Barkha Herman Member

    @Mollie – I love it.

    Why coupe immigration and tax benefits to marriage? Your definition of marriage clearly does not.

    If those are decoupled , then there would be no legal grounds to redefine marriage.

    In other words, the only perceived injustice is related to Government grants for married people.

    • #22
    • March 22, 2013, at 10:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. Joseph Stanko Member
    Barkha Herman: 

    In other words, the only perceived injustice is related to Government grants for married people. · 0 minutes ago

    No, the left perceives injustice anywhere that same-sex couples are treated differently than married couples: adoption agencies, wedding photographers, insurance plans, employers, even churches.

    Just as they still perceive racism everywhere 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, their quest for cosmic justice will not be satisfied until every last behavior they judge to be “homophobic” is banned by law.

    • #23
    • March 22, 2013, at 11:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Joseph Stanko Member
    Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
    Christopher Bowen: Agree 100% with Mollie on the soap thing. In our quixotic attempt to sterilize ourselves, the bacteria always win. Hence, superbugs resistant to our best antibiotics. You know how doctors are always squirting that foam Steris on their hands from those dispensers on the wall? Do not do the same. Only the nastiest stuff lives on the tip of those things. · 3 minutes ago

    My favorite thing about this podcast is that my husband thinks he won that fight. · 3 hours ago

    But then why bother to wash your hands before eating? If the point is not to kill bacteria, and there’s no dirt or mud on your hands, just skip it altogether.

    • #24
    • March 22, 2013, at 11:47 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. Joseph Stanko Member
    Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

    What is marriage?

    Reading Ricochet has taught me that it’s a private contract between two parties for certain financial and other benefits.

    Because nothing is more romantic than that moment when a man goes down on one knee, gazes into the eyes of his beloved, and asks the timeless question: “would you enter into a contract with me so that I can put you on my employer’s insurance plan and we can both save money on our income taxes?”

    • #25
    • March 22, 2013, at 12:03 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. Barkha Herman Member
    Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
    Barkha Herman

     I have a friend who had uterine cancer, and hence cannot have any children. Would you say that she cannot get married?

    I have a couple of gay friends who have adopted a little girl. Would you say they are better candidates for marriage? · 32 minutes ago

    What is marriage? · 18 minutes ago

    A special type of contract that restricts who can enter into it, and awards people in it with special privileges related to inheritance, taxation and immigration.

    • #26
    • March 22, 2013, at 12:27 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. Barkha Herman Member
    Joseph Stanko

    Because nothing is more romantic than that moment when a man goes down on one knee, gazes into the eyes of his beloved, and asks the timeless question: “would you enter into a contract with me so that I can put you on my employer’s insurance plan and we can both save money on our income taxes?” · 30 minutes ago

    If it is the romantic moment when a man goes down on one knee, gazes into the eyes of his beloved, and asks the timeless question, then why the restriction? Is the suggestion that romance is only between heterosexuals?

    The claim (at least in my interpretation) is that the only point of marriage is kids. Perhaps all marriages should be shotgun weddings – this way we can avoid frivolous marriages. 

    • #27
    • March 22, 2013, at 12:37 PM PDT
    • Like
  28. Joseph Stanko Member
    Barkha Herman
    Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

    What is marriage? · 18 minutes ago

    A special type of contract that restricts who can enter into it, and awards people in it with special privileges related to inheritance, taxation and immigration. · 21 minutes ago

    No wonder fewer and fewer young people are getting married these days. Put it in those terms and it sounds like a trivial financial arrangement, rather like taking out a life insurance policy.

    There’s nothing profound, romantic, or life-altering about a “special type of contract… with special privileges related to inheritance, taxation and immigration.”

    • #28
    • March 22, 2013, at 12:59 PM PDT
    • Like
  29. Barkha Herman Member
    Joseph Stanko
    Barkha Herman: 

    In other words, the only perceived injustice is related to Government grants for married people. 

    No, the left perceives injustice anywhere that same-sex couples are treated differently than married couples: adoption agencies, wedding photographers, insurance plans, employers, even churches.

    Just as they still perceive racism everywhere 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, their quest for cosmic justice will not be satisfied until every last behavior they judge to be “homophobic” is banned by law. 

    I have an acquaintance who admits that when letting (renting) apartments, if the person who shows up to inspect the apartment turns out to be black, he claims the apartment is no longer available. I know for a fact that discrimination exists at least in that case.

    I can also attest that when I show up to events organized by conservatives, I am either the only minority – or one of two to three.

    I know that most people on this site do no experience discrimination. Good for them.

    Try being Canadian in a committed gay relationship with a US military veteran, and your only path to Citizenship is to engage in a fake marriage.

    • #29
    • March 23, 2013, at 1:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. Joseph Stanko Member
    Barkha Herman
    Just as they still perceive racism everywhere 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, their quest for cosmic justice will not be satisfied until every last behavior they judge to be “homophobic” is banned by law. 

    I have an acquaintance who admits that when letting (renting) apartments, if the person who shows up to inspect the apartment turns out to be black, he claims the apartment is no longer available. I know for a fact that discrimination exists at least in that case.

    Of course discrimination still exists. My view of human nature and original sin lead me to believe racism always has, and always will, exist.

    My question is: what should the government do about it?

    And my larger point was that the progressives will not rest after enacting SSM, but will press for more and more laws as long as they perceive “homophobia” still exists.

    • #30
    • March 23, 2013, at 2:32 AM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2