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.
I am not in a position to judge whether Darren Wilson handled himself properly in his confrontation with Michael Brown. It is clear enough that Brown was a punk — the sort of dope-head thug who would forcibly rob a convenience store. And the story told by Wilson is plausible enough: that Brown was walking in the middle of the street and interfering with traffic; that, when told to move to the sidewalk, he balked; that, when Wilson began to get out of his car, Brown shoved the door back against the policeman, grappled for his gun, and ran; and that he later turned around and charged Wilson. But, of course, this story may not be entirely true, and Wilson may have overreacted.
But even if Wilson is at fault — and I am well aware that policemen can be trigger-happy and that, in a crunch, they can easily get rattled, misjudge, and overreact — what happened in Ferguson that night (as opposed to succeeding nights) was, from a political perspective, inconsequential. As Jason Riley of The Wall Street Journal courageously points out in the video posted below, African-Americans make up 13% of the American population and 50% of the homicide victims, but very, very few of the African-Americans who are killed in this country die at the hands of white policemen. In fact, 90% of the African-Americans who are murdered in the United States are murdered by their fellow African-Americans. What happened in Ferguson was a relatively rare event that may or may not tell us something about Darren Wilson and the police force of St. Louis County. But it tells us nothing about white racism in the nation as a whole and next to nothing about discrimination against American blacks.
I’ve been having an e-mail exchange this week with a reporter from one of the country’s biggest newspapers on the topic of executive power. I’m not sure if, or to what extent, my comments will make it into print, but I thought I’d take Ricochet members behind the curtain and show you how these kinds of exchanges often play out.
Have a look at the substance of the discussion, then weigh in in the comments to let me know what you think.
For me, Twitter is less a social-media service than a six-year-long political argument with no sign of ending. In myriad (and meaningless) keyboard battles, I’ve tangled with progressives on economic policy, foreign affairs, elections, pop culture, social issues, education reform and countless other topics.
Obviously, I waste too much time on Twitter. But whatever the subject, my liberal enablers always drop the same line; one they believe will end the debate for good. About every other day since 2008, I’ve been on the receiving end of this withering coup de grâce, always delivered with a supercilious tone of finality.
“Maybe you should stop watching Fox News!” The more clever interlocutors misspell it “Faux News,” adding wonky jargon such as “dum winger” or “tea-tard.”
Failed U.S. Senate candidate and amateur embryologist Todd Akin is releasing a defensive cri de coeur just four months before crucial midterm elections.
The press made the Missouri Republican the face of 2012’s imaginary “war on women,” fueling female turnout for President Obama’s re-election. The same media outlets are gleefully highlighting Akin’s autobiography before its eventual consignment to bargain bins in heartland bookstores.
Does Akin use the opportunity to apologize for helping Democrats retain the Senate and the White House? Not so much:
Forgive me for not writing this post two years ago, but Comcast only recently made House of Cards available on demand. A good friend of mine who writes about pop culture for a living urged me to watch House of Cards. He’s a liberal who likes to rib me, but he assured me that the […]
This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.
The Australian edition of The Guardian — probably the most hard-left of the lefty daily newspapers in the English-speaking world — published a story Thursday about how Attorney General George Brandis stood up for skeptics of the theory of man-caused, catastrophic global warming.
Brandis is not a skeptic himself. He believes in man-caused, catastrophic global warming, but he also believes in liberty. So he gave a “passionate” speech in which he said it was “deplorable” that skeptics are being excluded from the climate change debate. People who say the “science is settled,” Brandis said, are “ignorant” and “medieval.” He did all but call the climate alarmists in Australia’s government fascists.