The Crowhill Report - Content

Views and opinions on the news, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Sites endorsed by Crowhill:
Crowhill Publishing
The Krehbiel Report on Publishing@gregkrehbiel

Possible explanations for Trump’s turnover rate

by Greg Krehbiel on 19 January 2018

Turnover In Trump’s White House Is ‘Record-Setting,’ And It Isn’t Even Close. Okay. Here are some possible reasons.

He’s tough to work with.

He’s too erratic and people leave in frustration.

He likes to fire people.

He likes a dynamic, changing team.

The left and the media (but I repeat myself) have systematically tried to ruin the lives anybody who works for him.

4 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-19  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Should there be consequences when Congress fails to pass a budget?

by Greg Krehbiel on 18 January 2018

In case you haven’t heard, the government might shut down Friday night because Congress has been unable to do one of its main jobs. Pass a budget.

It’s political theater, of course. One party or the other will sometimes threaten a shutdown when they don’t get their way on something. The other party will decry shutdowns — until it’s their turn to threaten one, then the parties will exchange their talking point memos and go at it from the other side.

I used to be amused at Reagan’s quip about a government shutdown. “Let’s shut it down and see if anybody notices.”

But there are real world consequences to this silliness. For example, I doubt the Chinese and Russian militaries are shackled with this sort of thing.

Passing a budget is a basic function of Congress. Should we have some rule in place to punish them — maybe they forfeit a year’s pay — if they don’t pass a budget?

19 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-18  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Why does Cathy Newman have a job?

by Greg Krehbiel on 17 January 2018

This is an amazing interview. Cathy Newman from Channel 4 in Britain interviewed Jordan Peterson, who has the bad taste to say truthful things about the sexes.

Peterson is calm, rational and in charge of the facts. Newman doesn’t seem capable of understand simple concepts, and then she gets mad because of it.

It’s a pretty classic example (in my opinion) of how some women react to criticisms and critiques of the standard “equality” narrative.

3 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-17  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Broadchurch Season 3: Femsplain it to me

by Greg Krehbiel on 17 January 2018

Season one of Broadchurch was very interesting. A little dark, but interesting. Season 2 was good as well. If you have Netflix, check it out.

Somewhere between the second and third seasons they decided they had to put good story and interesting characters aside and push a feminist agenda. The show is still worth watching, but … I’m so sick of this pattern.

The public wants pretty people telling interesting stories in a visually compelling way. We don’t want a bunch of weird drama people lecturing us with their morally underdeveloped view of the world.

(Note: I mistakenly had this as season 2 at first. It’s season 3 I’m talking about.)

14 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-17  ::  Greg Krehbiel

A quick summary of what’s going on

by Greg Krehbiel on 17 January 2018

A friend posted something on Facebook that took a fairly typical left-wing position on Donald Trump. (Racist, bigot, etc.)

I know this guy to be a pretty fair fellow, so I asked if he’d considered that maybe he wasn’t hearing the whole story. He asked me how I interpret what’s going on. Here’s my reply.

* The country is going through a huge demographic change that the public never approved and didn’t want.

* Congress has done absolutely nothing to fix it, but has only made matters worse.

* People who have questioned whether this change is good for the country (some for good, some for bad reasons) have been collectively demonized by the left in a very shameful way.

* Nobody on the right had the balls to stand up to the left.

* Enter loud-mouthed, brash, Donald Trump, who’s willing to say crazy stuff.

* While all this is going on, the media has learned that outrage sells more clicks and eyeballs than responsible journalism, so our “news” has become completely crazy.

* At the same time, tech companies have put each of us into our own little echo chambers, and most people don’t have any idea how insular and narrow-minded their own views are, based on what they’re exposed to.

* This feeds the hatred, which keeps the cycle going, as if we’re all descending down a spiral.

15 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-17  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Is it right to condition forgiveness on repentance?

by Greg Krehbiel on 16 January 2018

I find it slightly galling that the Catholic Church keeps “asking for forgiveness” over the clergy abuse scandal while — in my opinion — not doing enough to change the situation that allowed it. (See, for example, On Visit To Chile, Pope Asks For Forgiveness Over Sex-Abuse Scandal.)

We’re supposed to forgive the way we want to be forgiven, so on a personal level it wouldn’t be right to condition forgiveness on the repentance of the one who needs forgiveness.

But does that apply to institutions?

ISTM we err when we assume that rules meant to apply to individuals (e.g., turn the other cheek, give to him who asks of you, etc.) should also apply to institutions, like the government. So, to answer my own question, I think it is appropriate to use a different set of standards for “forgiving” the church — or any other institution — than we would apply to individuals.

However, I can see some reason to go the other way on this. Many of Jesus’ statements in the sermon on the mount seem to be addressing abuses by the Romans. E.g., “if someone forces you to go with him one mile” was (I’ve been told) a reference to the right of a Roman soldier to require someone to carry his stuff for a mile.

Is that only a reference to an individual Jew’s attitude to an individual Roman soldier, or does it also apply to the attitude towards the Roman occupation generally?

Also, even when it comes to individuals, forgiveness doesn’t mean you have to be stupid. If your spouse keeps getting drunk and embarrassing the family, there might have to be consequences.

7 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-16  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Men: Read our minds or we’ll publicly shame you

by Greg Krehbiel on 16 January 2018

You’ve probably heard the sad tale of Aziz Ansari and his unfortunate date.

If not (I warn you, this is not G-rated) here’s the post that started it all. And then there’s this, which seems more sensible: Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader.

It seems likely that Ansari should have been more sensitive and understanding. It also seems that “Grace” (not her real name — only men get to be shamed in these sorts of stories) needed to be more assertive.

Woman are bold and courageous and strong and tough, but they often have a hard time saying “no” clearly. Somehow that makes sense, but I’ve never figured it out.

The obvious solution to this mess is to retrain men, and publicly shame them when they don’t meet some anonymous woman’s standards.

That is the real goal of #metoo — creating an environment in which men can be destroyed by mere accusations.

12 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-16  ::  Greg Krehbiel

The ongoing ignorance about ignorance

by Greg Krehbiel on 12 January 2018

I was hoping for better from Science Says That To Fight Ignorance, We Must Start By Admitting Our Own.

The article makes a good point — that humility goes a long way — but IMO it misses the most important thing.

… we’ve found ourselves in a strange position in which people who know almost nothing about difficult and complicated subjects are righteous in their rejection of others who have spent years studying those very same fields.

Yes. But why? Why are people so ready to reject what experts say? That’s what seems to escape all these hand-wringers, and I find it very telling.

People should admit their own ignorance, of course. But it’s far more important that they admit their own bias.

Someone who has “spent years studying those very same fields” might simply be brainwashed. Full of ideology. Shown only one side of the coin.

This should be obvious to anybody who’s paying attention. If, for example, you meet somebody who has “spent years studying” women’s studies, you figure that person knows a lot of stuff, but from a very biased point of view. They’ve been baptized in it, steeped in it, and their wool has the dye all the way through.

Every thinking person knows this is true of “women’s studies” and similar disciplines, but the problem is that other disciplines are starting to look the same way. Some ideas are forbidden. They’re shamed. They’re shouted down. There’s right-think and there’s wrong-think.

Your average guy on the street sees evidence of this all the time, so the fact that somebody has “studied something for years” might only mean, “Oh, then you’re really opinionated, aren’t you?”

The more these disciplines scream and yell about “denialism” and other silly, made-up concepts, the more they are creating the very climate that causes this doubt.

Fewer people would doubt the story on climate change if the climate change community wasn’t so full of extremist, intolerant twits.

When reasonable questions are met with anger, hysteria, name-calling and campaigns to silence the opposition, this reinforces the “righteous rejection” of the opinions of people who have spent years “studying” those fields. What it says is, “Oh, you climate change people are just like the women’s studies department. I’ve seen your type before.”

That is the problem.

Scientists need to take a clue from Princess Leia. “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.” And the more scientists act like offended little 6th graders when their views aren’t accepted, more of the public will slip through their fingers.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-12  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Immigrants from shithole countries

by Greg Krehbiel on 12 January 2018

This is from Drudge today.

And then there’s this from the formerly interesting Bill Kristol.

Mr. Kristol is apparently too stupid to know — or thinks we’re too stupid to know — that an anecdote is not the same thing as data. Because there are a few really good immigrants from some country does not mean we should be bringing in a lot of people from that country, and it’s horribly insulting for Kristol to think that anybody should be swayed by that kind of illogical argument.

Trump is right. Haiti is a shithole. The president of the United States shouldn’t be talking like that, but … he’s right. (If he really said it.)

He’s also right to question why we need to be bringing so many people in from Haiti — or from any other country.

We can’t let everybody on the planet who wants to come to America immigrate, so we have to have rules and priorities. Those rules and priorities should be based on what’s best for America. Simply put, we want people who will assimilate and contribute to our culture.

In the past, we did this by restricting immigration by the source country. A German might be considered more likely to assimilate into American culture than a Tibetan. That’s not true for every German or every Tibetan, but it might be a safe generalization.

Our culture is enriched by immigrants. As a trivial example, it’s really cool that I can walk a few blocks from my office and get 25 different ethnic cuisines. We like immigrants.

At the same time, America is different in important ways, and we don’t want to water down the things that make us different — and, let’s be honest, better. (For some examples, see Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World. Immigrants should have to agree with the basic political philosophies that distinguish America.)

Our immigration rules have to be rational. I’m no expert, but I think there should be three basic principles.

1. We want people who will assimilate and agree with our values.
2. We want people who will contribute some skill or knowledge that we need.
3. Sometimes we should let people in for humanitarian reasons.

I don’t see why this should have anything to do with country of origin. When people apply to immigrate, they should take a test or a survey so we can check to see if they meet our needs. For example, if we need 1,000 engineers, we should pick the top 1,000 — irrespective of what country they’re from. If they’re all from Haiti, fine.

32 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-12  ::  Greg Krehbiel

French women to the rescue, and the silliness of the #metoo business

by Greg Krehbiel on 11 January 2018

The only safe thing to do, in the current frenzy over Weinstein and such, is to take a servile, obsequious attitude towards the #metoo thing. Fortunately, there are courageous French women in the world.

French star Catherine Deneuve defends men’s ‘right’ to chat up women

Rape is a crime, but trying to seduce someone, even persistently or cack-handedly, is not — nor is being gentlemanly a macho attack ….

[These brave French women] insisted that women were “sufficiently aware that the sexual urge is by its nature wild and aggressive. But we are also clear-eyed enough not to confuse an awkward attempt to pick someone up with a sexual attack.”


There is real sexual harassment that needs to be dealt with. But you know how this works. If you want to “raise awareness” about X, you define X so broadly that you can claim zillions of people are suffering from it. It doesn’t matter if X is depression or homelessness or sexual harassment. It’s like a class-action lawsuit. You want as many victims as possible.

I poked fun at the excesses of the #metoo crowd on Facebook, and a dear friend lectured me about it. In her rebuke, she told me …

Sexual Harassment is defined as any unwanted/unwelcome sexual action that makes another person feel unsafe/intimidated/uncomfortable.

Who got to “define” it this way, I wonder?

The definition is ridiculous. How is someone supposed to know ahead of time if something is unwanted or unwelcome?

This “definition” of sexual harassment is a big part of the problem of #metoo. It lumps rape and serious abuse in with “Oooh, yuck, I didn’t want him to ask me out.”

One night, while on a business trip, a professional colleague suggested several of us go to a club he liked. I’m usually game for such things (and I wanted to practice my salsa), so I tagged along, only to discover that it was a gay club. Before I could get out of there, some guy grabbed me in the crotch.

Unwanted? Check.
Felt uncomfortable? Check.

So I can now join the illustrious ranks of the #metoo crowd over an incident that was completely no big deal. No harm was done. I wasn’t interested, and that was that. I don’t need counseling or a shoulder to cry on, and I certainly don’t need hordes of sympathetic women posting sad emoji faces.

Yes, I realize I’m being rude and insensitive. That’s precisely the consequence of making sexual harassment and this #metoo thing so broad as to be ridiculous.

Obviously I’m sympathetic to victims of rape, or assault, or genuine sexual harassment. But for a lot of this stuff, just brush it off, for God’s sake, and get on with your life. I thought you were supposed to be strong!

6 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2018-01-11  ::  Greg Krehbiel

2018-01-10 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Are bugs the food of the future?
2018-01-05 :: Greg Krehbiel // sex
Will we ever learn?
2018-01-05 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Plans for a cold weekend