Greg Krehbiel's Crowhill Weblog - Content

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

Other Crowhill sites:
Crowhill PublishingGreg's Book Publishing blog
Greg's Marketing blogHome Brewing blog

Obama’s got a point re: Iran

by Greg Krehbiel on 3 March 2015

There’s no deal yet. Once there’s a deal, Obama says, then we can all debate its merits.

I agree with him (1) up to a point, and (2) if that’s actually the way it’s going to work.

There’s nothing wrong with people discussing what sorts of terms would or would not be acceptable in advance of the deal. In fact, it’s often good to know those things before you try to finalize a deal.

It’s also incredibly arrogant of Obama to expect Israel to sit quietly by while the grown-ups go off in the next room to discuss things. Iran getting a nuclear bomb is of more concern to Israel than it is to us.

Also, given that we’re dealing with Obama, we have to wonder if he actually intends to allow public discussion and debate, and after that to subject the deal to any sort of Congressional approval. He’s shown a tendency to go off on his own and to contravene Congressional authority, and he’s been exceptionally good at getting away with that.

So he has a point, but given who we’re dealing with, we have to take it with a lot of caveats.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-03  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Quit educating mothers!

by Greg Krehbiel on 2 March 2015

I’m kidding, but take a look at this: Who are the anti-vaxxers?

Anti-vaxxers don’t fit into just one political mold. Democrat and Republican respondents to a February Pew Research Center poll were about equally likely to say vaccines are safe for children who are healthy. Eighty-nine percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats agreed with that statement.

But they do tend to share some characteristics, like being wealthier and having more formal education, says Mark Sawyer, a pediatric infectious disease specialist in San Diego. It’s that group where he sees the most vaccine resistance. Vaccination rates have sunk in mostly white, wealthy neighborhoods in places such as Los Angeles and Orange County. …

The biggest camp by far are the highly educated, mainstream upper-class people who don’t reject modern medicine, who go to the doctor, but have gotten on this theme of distrust of the information that’s being provided by doctors about vaccines,” Sawyer said. (emphasis supplied)

Not in My Back Yard has become Not In My Child. Rules are for the little people.

“You would think highly educated people would be able to step back and look at the claims that are being made, but it’s all being run on anecdotes,” Sawyer said.

No, I would not think that. In fact, I would think the opposite. It is often the educated people who are more easily led by the nose.

-- 3 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-02  ::  Greg Krehbiel

“Green” wise and dollar foolish

by Greg Krehbiel on 2 March 2015

A little while ago at my office the building management decided to install new faucets that severely restrict the flow of water. It’s a “green” initiative to save water. Of course the dribble of water was annoying, but … it was for the environment. (All bow.)

The fact that this area used to be a swamp and there’s no shortage of water doesn’t seem to factor in. “Saving water” is some sort of holy virtue.

Today they were removing all these goofy faucets because the low water volume caused lots of stopped drains. It wasn’t enough water to flush the system.

-- 3 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-02  ::  Greg Krehbiel

“Net neutrality”

by Greg Krehbiel on 1 March 2015

I’m only starting to understand what this fight is all about, but a few patterns are emerging that help me get the general picture.

A bitterly divided part of the government barely passes a complicated proposal championed by the Obama administration, and the public wasn’t able to see the details. Sound familiar?

The proposal hides “more government control” behind a good-sounding but naive premise. In this case “neutrality.” Again, sounds familiar.

It was heavily promoted by left-wing advocacy groups and money bags, like George Soros. (Funny how the media will complain about the influence of the Koch brothers, but forgets to mention Soros.)

It prefers government control to market-based control. It allows the “experts” to make decisions for the masses. It’s the camel’s nose under the tent that will enable ever more government meddling.

-- 5 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-01  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Up on Bluehost

by Greg Krehbiel on 28 February 2015

We’re up and running on bluehost now. Sorry it took so long. I foolishly chose to ask them to do the transfer and they are S-L-O-W. I finally just did it myself.

Anyway, a few brief thoughts.

Of course I’m saddened by the loss of Leonard Nimoy. Spock was an influential person in my life, and it was interesting to watch Nimoy’s career over the years. He did some odd stuff.

In other news, what the heck has happened to the country I was born in? I went to Dunkin Donuts this morning to get a coffee, and nobody speaks English any more!

Finally, I was in Tampa the last few days and the cabbie told me they’re doing construction on one of the highways down there to do a demonstration project for self-driving cars! Hurrah! I can’t wait. Cars — or rather, car drivers — are a menace to society.

-- 1 comment  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-02-28  ::  Greg Krehbiel

The media — defending Obama yet again

by Greg Krehbiel on 24 February 2015

Ed Rogers has a fairly tame article in the Post today — The Insiders: Why would anyone think Obama doesn’t love America? Plenty of reasons — that makes a couple of good points, but it also raises some interesting issues, starting with his self-description.

I’m a sufficiently intimidated, mostly tame Republican

That would describe most Republicans, of course, but you have to ask why he would say something like that? We all know why, but some of us hide the truth behind a mountain of excuses.

We all know how it works. If anybody challenges a liberal talking point or questions the (by definition good) motives of someone on the left, the harpies in the media reflexively gang up on that person. As they’re doing right now with Giuliani’s comments. Then they start a McCarthy-style witch hunt asking everyone to distance themselves from the remarks. Then they completely misrepresent the answers they get — as they’re doing right now with Scott Walker.

Funny (as in queer, not amusing) how they don’t report on crazy leftist remarks or badger liberals to distance themselves from them.

The media are in full-throttle attack mode against anyone who gives pause to Giuliani’s statements.

Of course they are. It’s what they do. It’s so normal and expected that the media would defend Obama that nobody even thinks twice about it. It’s become so much a part of our culture that we don’t even notice it any more.

-- 1 comment  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-02-24  ::  Greg Krehbiel

The moral implications of crossing the street

by Greg Krehbiel on 23 February 2015

As a general rule I think it would be better if everybody, including pedestrians, obeyed all the traffic laws all the time. But that’s generally regarded as a hassle in the city and few people do it.

There are times when it’s clearly safe to cross the street, but the light is against you. We expect cars to wait in that situation, so why is it so unreasonable to expect pedestrians to wait? It’s not, IMO, but that’s not the way it us. Everybody seems to accept that pedestrians will break the rules. In that situation — with so many people regularly breaking the rules — it seems unnecessarily scrupulous to worry too much about following them.

In a way it’s like driving 5 mph over the speed limit just because you know the cops won’t enforce the rule that carefully.

But there is another moral aspect to crossing the street that is more interesting to me, and that’s the influence you have on other people. When you cross the street, other people around you assume it’s safe to cross and they go too.

Someone could argue that he’s not responsible for what other people do. “I didn’t tell them it was safe to cross,” the jaywalker might say. “They made that decision themselves.”

Well …. Not really. Whether you like it or not, whether you intend it or not, your actions influence other people. How culpable you are for that influence will vary by the situation, but it’s just being intentionally obtuse to claim that you don’t have some responsibility.

I think that same principle applies in lots of areas.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-02-23  ::  Greg Krehbiel

“No one knows what goes on behind closed doors”? Really?

by Greg Krehbiel on 23 February 2015

This weekend I watched most of Cassablanca. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it all the way through, and the last time I saw any of it was probably 30 years ago. Or more.

Generally speaking I’m an ornery fellow and have an aversion to anything that everybody has to do or has to see. I don’t like to use the hip slang, or follow trends. They irk me. You will never hear me saying “my bad.” I don’t watch the Oscars and I don’t care about bubble-headed water cooler conversation.

Anyway, I didn’t know about some of the undercurrents of Cassablanca — like the similarity between the moral dilemma faced by the Bulgarian gal and by Ilsa. It was very interesting — and they didn’t have to show any skin! There was no sex scene. Even when Ilsa shows up in Rick’s room in the middle of the night, clothes remained where they belong. And nothing about the movie suffers because of it.

In a few decades we have become a nation of voyeurs. In the modern consciousness, if two people have a relationship, we have to see it or it’s somehow “not realistic,” or prudish, or … something.

It’s really quite sick.

-- 7 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-02-23  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Giuliani is right

by Greg Krehbiel on 22 February 2015

Our president is a disgrace.

Giuliani’s speech is well worth listening to.

Obama is a naive, weak fool.

-- 24 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-02-22  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Weird anti-Starbucks tea snobbery

by Greg Krehbiel on 20 February 2015

I like tea. A lot. I usually drink it black, but there’s a shop in D.C. that serves a really good chai tea. I go there every once in a while to get a cup.

I’ve never had Starbucks’ chai tea, but this article grabbed my attention: No, Starbucks’ Chai Tea Latte is not real chai. Which, of course, begs the question, what is real chai?

It seems that real chai is whatever someone in India does, however weird or nasty, unless they happen to do what Starbucks does, in which case nevermind.

The article says that people in India make chai a million different ways, and it’s hard to see what they all have in common. Except maybe the tea. And it’s even harder to figure out what disqualifies the Starbucks version — except, of course, that it’s American and successful.

There is a weird attitude about foreign ideas that wash up on our shores (to paraphrase Brad Paisley). It seems to be something like “whatever is successful is bad and inauthentic.” So if an American takes an idea from another country and makes it better, he’s somehow cheating. It would be so much more authentic if it was made in a crappy, unsanitary way by a poor person who’s standing in cow manure and hasn’t washed his cookware for 20 years.

My beef is mostly with the headline, which was not written to be informative, but to get clicks. In my case it worked.

-- 1 comment  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-02-20  ::  Greg Krehbiel

2015-02-19 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Site may go dark
2015-02-18 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
The new coming of age for women
+ 1 comment
2015-02-18 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
“Get your ash over here”?
2015-02-17 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
National concealed carry?
2015-02-16 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
What Lot felt like
2015-02-13 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
The Law of Merited Impossibility