From Court-Packing to Wilson-Bashing

TO OUR FAVORITE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! Not seniors this time around, but Remnant listeners, ...

By

TO OUR FAVORITE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! Not seniors this time around, but Remnant listeners, that is. Jonah returns to ruminate with some fire in his belly this week – on the wasting of energy on Twitter, the bizarre phenomenon of the mainstream-media respectable conservative, court packing, The Worst President in History™, a revisiting of the weed conversation from the last Remnant, and more. Also, the quote of the day – or maybe the month, or the year – might be this: “The very essence of serious thinking … is the ability to make distinctions between superficially similar things.”

Show Notes:

–G-FileThis week’s

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (73)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Golfina

    I am a moderate Democrat who enjoys listening to The Dispatch and Advisory Opinions. I do not always agree but I learn and have the sense we could agree to disagree about certain things without disliking one another. On Court packing - I am a lawyer so I understand what that means. I believe McConnell broke the country irretrievably when he refused to give Garland a vote. He assured there never again would be a Supreme Court nominee nominated by a President of one party when the Senate of is controlled by the other party. There is no going back from that. Then, from my point of view, the rending of the country was made even worse by the abject hypocrisy made up to justify confirming Barrett days before an election after the arguments to avoid even considering Garland. I believe adding seats to the SCOTUS to appoint more justices to change the ideological balance of the court (i.e., Court packing), is a terrible idea because of the obvious tit for tat that will occur, but what other alternative is there. I think we got to this terrible place because almost all of our elected politicians are repulsive - they are hypocrites, they have no principles, they take polls to tell voters what they think -they are not even in the ball park of being leaders, they are too cowardly to take difficult votes, and care nothing about the county and care only about themselves. It turns out that many people in our country cannot distinguish between those who are merely repulsive and those who not only are repulsive but who also are venal. We have treated politics and governing as a game and we are getting close to losing the whole democracy game. Where do we go from here?

    Collapse
  2. Golfina

    Test

    Collapse
  3. Joe1776

    I'm a big fan of Ann Applebaum's books on the Soviet Union. I listened to the Iron Curtain and the Red Famine. Both are excellent. I would love to ask her questions.

    Looking at her twitter it seems she is now trying to redefine court packing and seems to bite on every conspiracy theory against Trump there is. I am somewhat amazed how we can reach such opposite conclusions about what we should be concerned about in government. Her going along with redefining court packing to take the pressure off of Biden for an obviously tyrannical move is really surprising to me. I just wonder how that can happen.

    I remember that I listened to her on a Sam Harris podcast. It was interesting that he had her on early when Trump first started saying he was being spied on. Both her and Harris were saying how absolutely insane that was. Then I noticed she was on again after it broke that yes Obama was spying on the campaign. It was interesting how the position just seemlessly shifted. There was never any sort of "Hmmm well I guess maybe there was cause to be concerned." Nope it just went to well it wasn't specifically at Trump towers and the typical fact check against details that are pretty much irrelevant to why it is concerning.

    The FBI being used by obama is just not something she seems cognizant of. The same is true of how he treated the press including Rosen. Or how his IRS just happened to give republican groups a harder time. She complains that Trump and Barr are investigating how the fbi may have been used. She claims that is political. I wonder if she thinks the Clinesmith guilty plea is a political prosecution.

    Does she think Hillary knew nothing about the steele investigation? Does she believe the Steele dossiere?

    I also wonder how she can not see danger in how the media is becoming so lopsided for one party and how people are being fired for their political dissent.

    I would love to hear how she squares what the left is doing here with a quote from her own book:

    "The vast majority of eastern Europeans did not make a pact with he devil or sell their souls to become informers bur rather succumbed to constant all encompassing everyday psychological and economic pressure. The Stalinist system excelled at creating large groups of people who disliked regime and knew the propaganda was false but who felt nevertheless compelled to go along with it "
    The Iron Curtain by Anne Applebaum chapter 16

    Does she not see the pressure of having to accept black lives matter propaganda in sports and comedy and every aspect of life? Does she not see how journalism is being overtaken and canceling people with diverse views? I mean I understand if a publication is self described as a liberal paper or a progressive paper they won't want conservatives. But this pressure is going into areas that have nothing to do with politics at all. Does she think the right is doing this?

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Patrick Stuart

    If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time that Jonah has admitted publicly to smoking weed.

    Collapse
    1. Scott Mc

      In the spirit of the show I can’t remember. But I do remember lunch.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Loganrjudy

    I know you think it feels weird, but the Ruminant has become one of my favorite weekly pod listens. Stream of consciousness (if I'm using the term correctly?) can be good and engaging.

    Collapse
    1. Scott Mc

      Agreed. It is my favorite.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ajax81613

    This is one of your best commentaries. I often disagree with your conclusions, but have generally respected your arguments, and I really enjoy hearing them. There are times when you default to rambling about the generally negative effects (in your view) of the Democrats, with a big D, but when you are able to put those aside and provide honest commentary like this it is really refreshing. This is why I subscribe to the Dispatch, please keep it up.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Good. Yes, do more on Woodrow Wilson. No, you are not allowed to change the orc music. It’s a staple and will remain so for the end of time.

    You cannot change it like mankind cannot change what universe they live in.

    It’s permanent now Jonah. And somethings must remain permanent, for the sake of us all.

    Collapse
  8. PM

    It's good to have goals. I'm lukewarm to the 100k subscriber initiative though. I recall the American Spectator, National Review, and perhaps the New Republic just going off the rails when they hit 100k.

    I'm fine with the Dispatch as it generally exists now. Quality not quantity.

    I'm not ready for Steve Hayes in gold chains, David French's the Aquaman monologues, or efforts to clone Woodrow Wilson so he can be tried for crimes against America. Ok maybe I'm ok with Queso Burro but it's still better sometimes to dream than to realize.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      Pretty sure that the Dispatch would use the funds to hire more reporters, maybe chase some "outside the DC Bubble" regional stories, or even expand their international coverage. Not sure if podcast guests are paid, but if they are, extra funds might get higher profile guests. (I always wondered if that was why Bolton didn't appear on a Dispatch podcast during his book tour, that he wanted more $ than was in the budget. )

      Collapse
      1. PM

        The Dispatch already has a really awesome reporter. His name is Stephen Hayes.

        Perhaps the Dispatch can bring in Paris Hilton :) It may seem counterintuitive for me to say this but political celebrities bring fame and fortune but this isn't desirable.

        They are parrots. If your goal is to understand what's going on, you want to talk with the "sausage makers" if it's even possible to flush them out into the open.

        For example, we've been hearing a lot about "court packing" lately. It originated from somewhere but where and from whom? That's an interesting conversation.

        Would love to hear Bolton speak but I bought his book. I could afford his book especially since I got it at a discount :).

        I don't know if the Dispatch currently offers Bolton a compelling argument to bring his discourse in this direction.

        We did get Chris Wallace.

        Collapse
  9. David Conklin

    Sometimes I make time for just one podcast from The Dispatch and if that is the case it is Jonah solo. I will continue to say this as long as Jonah humbly wonders if he is doing this right. Yes you are! I also don’t always get around to reading all Jonah’s G files and such and even if I do I have either forgotten or enjoy the verbal reinforcement in the podcast. Keep it up Jonah.

    Collapse
  10. Scott Mc

    Jonah...I have not listened to the full weed program, but as always your comments on weed abuse for youth are on the money. Yeah people with lived experience in that space dont look back saying yeah those were amazing productive years filled with amazing accomplishments, or 10 other such things (many friends would say partner relationship free, friendships limited, etc...)

    I am tired of the TV/movie glorification of weed as in its fine in any form or amount or daily use...I am good on legalization because it's use will not lead to violence (usually lethargy) nor collapse of all structure...but it rare to see situations where mass flourishing exists...

    Thank you so much...I loved it when you spoke with Bridget on it too. Her story resonates with a new life with clarity and more joy...

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Loganrjudy

      It's been a year or two now, but Joe Rogan hosted a marijuana debate on his pod that was really good (though I think it was largely about medicinal use iirc). And even Rogan, who is decidedly in the pro-weed camp, says teenagers should never have it.

      Collapse
      1. Scott Mc

        Hoping at least parents can guide their teens. A big ask for some. They like to copy adults when it works. 😊

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      I think there's a big difference between decriminalization or just legalization by itself, and marijuana being the new cash crop and miracle cure that should be encouraged or even subsidized by the government. Many state and local governments have counted on legal weed as something they can tax. But it seems much of that hasn't materialized, either because most growers aren't actually following tax law anymore than they did drug law when weed *was* illegal. Or, whatever boist in tax revenue is offset by the social consequences of more people , especially young people, sitting around stoned instead of getting productive jobs. I understand harm reduction arguments for decrim (which is different from legalization, people can still get the equivalent of traffic tickets but those would be civil fines and not go on a criminal record) . But some weed proponents who tout it as a miracle cure for both health and economic problems are selling something I am very skeptical about buying.

      Collapse
      1. Mary Stine

        Aylene, I am skeptical too. There does not seem to be enough good research on medical marijuana, for one thing. Perhaps decriminalization or legalization would help with that, but the problem of youth use and addiction is real.. I have a long time friend who is a clinical and family psychologist who is adamant that the marijuana on the market today is far stronger and much more addictive. Moreover, it is often "cut" with more addictive drugs. Even without that it promotes the idea to young impressionable minds that no pain should be endured, just blotted out as fast as possible.
        The only advantages I can see to legalization are 1.) regulation of purity and potency
        2.) restriction of sale to minors 3.) ability to study and research marijuana
        4.) concomitant ability for farmers to grow and produce hemp, a plant that is marijuana's kissing cousin, without the drug effects. Hemp doesn't require the heavy. pest control or artificial fertilizers, it can yield 3 crops in a year in some places, and every part of the plant is usable. The seeds are highly nutritious and have a very digestible protein. Thomas Jefferson grew hemp.
        A path forward might be this:
        1.) Decriminalize marijuana use . 2.) Allow highly restricted legal sales of marijuana products to adults only in small amounts. ID is required for sale. 3.) Require all growers/ sellers to be licensed by the state and county and to submit to regular inspections of their facilities along with frequent lab testing of their products for safety 4.) Sellers/growers not in compliance lose their license temporarily and those with more than 3 violations in the same year lose it permanently. 5.) Require all sellers to participate in ongoing research of benefits as well as drawbacks by submitting product, paying for licensing, and also keeping accurate records of any
        customer feed back. 6.) License hemp growing separately, with the same inspection schedule and testing. Recruit college students to help with getting hemp farming up and profitable. This might have real appeal to a younger generation as hemp is soil-friendlier than cotton.

        Collapse
Load More