The Crowhill Weblog - Content

Thoughts on life — News, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Sites endorsed by Crowhill:
The Krehbiel Report on Publishing

A “raging homo” says mass shootings are because we don’t let boys be boys

by Crowhill on 2 October 2015

This is an interesting article. How to stop mass shootings.

The problem, according to Nero, is that boys don’t have male role models any more.

Masculinity only becomes “toxic” when it is beaten down and suppressed and when men are told that what and who they are is defective. It becomes toxic when young boys are drugged in school because they don’t conform to feminine standards of behaviour. … Men must be allowed to compete. To fight. To shoot things. Today’s man-punishing, feminised culture is creating killers by suppressing these urges. We have to stop it.

I think he makes a good point — that some boys, who are told everything about them is wrong, are turning into frustrated, explosive men — but I don’t think that is the entire explanation. It’s a factor, but it’s not the cause.

-- 4 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-10-02  ::  Crowhill

Will we finally have national concealed carry?

by Crowhill on 2 October 2015

I don’t like making political points after tragedies like the shooting yesterday. It’s cheap and insensitive, and is always ignorant. People make assumptions about what happened and why, and how to stop it, and then two weeks later we discover the situation was completely different and that the knee-jerk “remedies” wouldn’t have changed anything anyway.

Last night I was disgusted that the narcissistic jerk in the White House used this tragedy to demagogue about gun control. It also disgusts me when the media reflexively says “will we finally get more gun control?”

So since the tragedy is going to be politicized anyway, why don’t we politicize it the other way? The left thinks the only possible solution is gun control, but that’s wrong. There are other solutions.

How about a federeal concealed carry law?

(Dana Perrino said re: Obama’s rush to judgement, “his instinct is to speak before all the information is in.”)

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-10-02  ::  Crowhill

This made me chuckle

by Crowhill on 1 October 2015

It’s one of those “what single word describes so and so” things.



--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-10-01  ::  Crowhill

How would a war affect the presidential field?

by Crowhill on 1 October 2015

If any of the many messes in the Middle East (thanks, Obama) drag us into a war, how do you think that will change people’s attitudes towards the candidates?

On the Democratic side, the “stay out of it” wing will go with Sanders and the more hawkish side will go with Hillary (reluctantly).

On the Republican side, the “stay out of it” wing will go with Paul. The prospect of a war would probably make Trump and Carson fade and help Rubio. It might even get Graham into single digits.

What else? If foreign policy becomes a bigger deal than jobs and the economy, how will that affect the election?

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-10-01  ::  Crowhill

Obama’s war on due process

by Crowhill on 30 September 2015

If you’re not concerned with what the Obama administration is doing to college men, you should be. See The unilateral war on college men.

In classic Obama fashion, the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter is not a law or a regulation, but it’s “considered binding.”

How long will Congress sit idle while Obama issues edicts from the White House? This isn’t the way the country is supposed to work.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-09-30  ::  Crowhill

Pope Francis is a shrewd fellow

by Crowhill on 30 September 2015

As I’ve mentioned before, Catholic social teaching doesn’t fall clearly on the left or the right of U.S. political categories. Catholics seem to be equal opportunity offenders.

But when Pope Francis was in the U.S., he emphasized his left-leaning positions.


At first I thought it was because he is, in his heart of hearts, a leftist. But another explanation occurred to me today that might make more sense. Maybe the guy is simply a genius.

There isn’t much social cost to offending the right. It takes a whole lot to get the right worked up about something — like murdering babies and things of that magnitude. But the left is calibrated to hair-trigger “I’m offended” response.

The right is offended every evening by the garbage on sitcoms, but nothing comes of it. On the other hand, if a genius engineer wears the wrong shirt on national television, the left throws a hissy fit.

Today we’re getting news that the pope supports Kim Davis’ position. The vitriol from the left is starting to flow. (They have tanks of the stuff stored up, ready to wage ugly war.)

So perhaps the pope didn’t mention his right-leaning positions for the very simple reason that he didn’t want to make a scene and offend the cry babies.

-- 6 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-09-30  ::  Crowhill

The science is settled — Neanderthal version

by Crowhill on 29 September 2015

This from The Neanderthals Rediscovered:

As dating methods have improved, it has become clear that Neanderthal traits appeared earlier than previously thought. The bones from this period are frequently revised back in time, sometimes by hundreds of thousands of years. (Emphasis supplied.)

Back in 5th grade I was very interested in paleoanthropology and I liked to read about human evolution. I had a Time-Life book series on the subject, and I particularly liked the one on the Neanderthals. Back in those days the Neanderthals were thought to be our ancestors, and their time on the planet (if I remember correctly) was much shorter than it is today.

So things change. Big deal, right? You get new evidence and you adjust. That’s the way it should be.

Yes, that is the way it should be. Unless you’re in a political battle, in which case “the science is settled” and opposition has to be suppressed with extreme prejudice.

-- 1 comment  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-09-29  ::  Crowhill

And scientists wonder why science isn’t respected

by Crowhill on 29 September 2015

It’s because too many scientists — or people like Bill Nye who want us to believe they are scientists — are arrogant jerks who abuse science to push a political agenda.

Back to Science Class for the Science Guy

-- 41 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-09-29  ::  Crowhill

Mark Levin for Speaker of the House

by Crowhill on 28 September 2015

I was told by a Washington lawyer that the Speaker of the House doesn’t have to be a congressman. This particular lawyer wanted the Republicans to bring back Newt Gingrich, which might be a good idea. He speaks well, and he’s pretty smart.

Gingrich would be a good choice, if for no other reason than that he’d shake up Washington. But I don’t think he’d shake things quite enough. Washington needs to shake until bones rattle and teeth get loose.

What the Republican Party needs right now is a massive shot of testosterone. They’ve let Obama and the Democrats walk all over them, and they need to send a message that the surrender days are over. They’re going to fight.

Making Mark Levin the Speaker of the House would enfuriate the media and the establishment. And that’s good enough for me.

-- 11 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-09-28  ::  Crowhill

The political landscape according to Whit Ayres

by Crowhill on 25 September 2015

I had the chance to hear Whit Ayres discuss the landscape for the 2016 election today at a Federalist Society lunch. Here are my notes (with a few of my comments).

The Big Picture

The lock the Republicans had on the electoral college in 80s has turned around. Before Bill Clinton, people said Democrats might never win the White House again, but Clinton transformed the Democratic Party by showing a willingness to change welfare (and a few other things I can’t remember), and that set the Democrats on a path to recent victories.

Now the lock is in the other direction. Republicans have a very tough uphill battle to win the White House. Why?

Republicans dominance of the white vote has been pretty constant, and they continue to win about 60%, but the electorate is fundamentally different.

In 1980, 88% of voters were white.
In 1986, it was down to 83%.
In 2012, it was 72%, and the white percentage of the population is declining at an increasing rate. In 2016 it will be even lower. Maybe 69 or 70%.

Romney won better among whites than Ronald Reagan did, but he still lost.

What does all this mean for the next election? For the Republican cadidate, it means that even if he can win Romney’s advantage among white voters, he’d still need 30% of nonwhites.

Candidates who have appear as if they have declared war on Hispanics are guaranteeing a Republican loss.

The numbers are daunting. But the situation is no more daunting for Republicans today than it was for Democrats in 1980. Republicans need somebody who can transform the image of the party.

Quick thoughts on the candidates

Hillary — she is not a very good candidate. Ayres says he has spent much of his adult life waiting for the latest scandal that will take down the Clintons, but it doesn’t seem to happen. Still, she’s very weak.

Bernie Sanders — he’s not even a Democrat. How will he get the Democratic nomination? (Ayres said something I didn’t quite catch about Sanders and the USSR, which might come back to haunt him. It might be something like this.)

Joe Biden — we’ll see. Ayres says that if you look in his eyes, and if you know anybody who has had to recover from the loss of a child, he doesn’t see it happening.

Elizabeth Warren — she’s an obvious choice if HRC collapses.

Dark horse — John Kerry. He’ll probably get a Nobel for the Iran deal. He already has the basics for a national campaign. He’s probably the strongest candidate if HRC fails.

Donald Trump — Ayres says he has no credibility predicting his numbers and admits to being stumped by the guy, especially since the bottom characteristic that people in focus groups say they want is somebody who is confrontational.

“What I know from focus groups is people like what he has to say, ‘he tells it like it is,’ etc., but ‘he really is a blow hard.'”

Ayres says it feels like Trump mania is fading. (I think he’s just hoping. I think Trump has a few more months to go before he starts fading.)

Ben Carson — he has an incredible story, but people who have never run at this level have no clue what they’re doing. It’s so easy to screw up. He’s an amateur in a difficult game, but he could win the Iowa caucuses.

Jeb Bush — he has a good record as a conservative governor, but nobody wants a Clinton Bush race. (Not even Jeb’s mother.) However … he has a lot of money and very talented people working for him.

Carly Fiorina — she came out of nowhere and made a strong showing in both debates. She has the cool and the knowledge. She will be Trump’s biggest foil, but she’ll face the same difficulty as Trump and Carson as a newcomer. Also, she has taken positions she took in California that will come back to get her.

Ted Cruz — smart as a whip. Very good with his base. He’s likely to be a player for a while. His challenge is expanding his coalition. Also, he’s not popular among his colleagues in Senate. Very capable and has money.

John Kasich — he has a strong record in key swing state, but his record is moderate and sometimes sounds as if he’s accusing you of being a bad Christian if you disagree with him.

Rand Paul — collapsed the first day isis cut off somebody’s head.

Chris Christie — not sure his in your face manner will work.

Marco Rubio (Ayres is working for him) — very talented. He beat an incumbent Republican governor against all advice. Do not underestimate this guy. Ayres says he is the most remarkable candidate he has worked for in 35 years. His reaction is always, “How do you know this stuff?” And he recommends watching this interview.

Ayres says Rubio is the guy who can accomplish the transformation Republicans need in this election.

One thing that he said in Q&A was very interesting. He said Hispanics sound like good Republicans in many ways. They’re hard working and believe in entrepreneurship, and they are devout. The only thing that doesn’t make them sound like Republicans is their support for Obamacare.

-- 1 comment  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-09-25  ::  Crowhill