The Crowhill Weblog - Content

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

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

Are universities criminalizing what guys do? Have thin-skinned feminists taken over?

by Crowhill on 4 December 2016

Has the world gone crazy, or is it just the hyper-liberalized universities that are criminalizing the way guys have always behaved?

I’ve seen several stories along these lines recently.

Harvard Men’s Soccer Team Sidelined For Rest Of Season Over Sexist Emails

I thought women were supposed to be tough. And what about “sticks and stones” and all that? These are just words, after all. And from what I hear, when women get together the conversation isn’t always Sunday School material either.

The thing is, I can see it both ways. I can imagine behavior that is so crude and over the top that a suspension would be appropriate. OTOH, I can imagine a feminist witch hunt against guys being guys. Since this is at a university, I suspect the latter. And there are indications of that in the article.

Among the horrible crimes these fellows are guilty of is that they ranked women’s attractiveness with numerical values. Wow. That’s pretty awful. Calling somebody an eight is now a hate crime.

This is something that activists and extremists often do. In their desperate search to find the bogeyman, they start to criminalize normal stuff. They might even have a decent case if they focus on actions and words that sane people can agree are over the top. But they need a never-ending supply of ideas for new doctoral theses, so they start looking around for the hidden, subtle problems that nobody else can see. They start talking about dog whistles and code words and secret motivations, and how systematic racism / sexism has taken over. It becomes racist to give a black man directions, and it’s sexist to open a door for a woman, or to sit comfortably on the subway.

The universities have taken their dudgeon so far that normal folk don’t trust them anymore. They seem like crazy people.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-12-04  ::  Crowhill

Go ahead, Democrats. Fight.

by Crowhill on 1 December 2016

This is a confusing bit of work: It’s time for Democrats to fight dirty (As if they haven’t been?)

He accuses Republican leaders of “pouring sand into the gas tank of representative democracy” by opposing Obama.

No. That’s what representative democracy is all about. There is no king. Obama wasn’t king, and Trump won’t be either. We want divided government. We want opposing views. We want there to be fights and disagreements. We absolutely don’t want any party or any political perspective or any group of any kind or description to get everything it wants.

Mr. Faris (the author of the article above) goes on to list a few of the alleged sins of the Republicans — like, for example, not giving Merrick Garland a vote.

They were entirely within their rights. Nothing in the constitution requires that we have nine Supreme Court justices, and nothing requires Congress to consider a president’s nomination. Absolutely nothing.

Faris hopes voters will …

… remove [Republicans] from office, and replace them with people that at least care whether the U.S. constitutional system is able to function as designed.

This is crazy talk. It’s functioning precisely as designed. He’s just sore that things aren’t going his way.

And now it will be the Democrats’ turn to fight and resist and oppose.

At long last, Democrats must learn from their tormenters: Obstruct. Delay. Delegitimize. Harass. Destroy. Above all: Do. Not. Help. This. Man. Govern.

I don’t agree with the Democrats’ agenda or goals, but I say go for it — because nobody can be trusted with power. If I could find a politician who agreed with me on every little thing, I would still not want him to be an unopposed ruler and get his way all the time. We need an opposition party. When a leader emerges we have to have other people snapping at his heels.

American government is designed to be a political game of “kill the guy with the ball.” Or “King of the Hill,” or whatever version of that game you played as a kid. Knock down the guy on top.

So, yes, Democrats. Fight. Fight dirty. Do whatever you think you need to.

2 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-12-01  ::  Crowhill

On seeming fair and feeling foul

by Crowhill on 1 December 2016

The Tolkien fans among you will get the reference. It came to mind as I was listening to some George Harrison this morning. Specifically, “Give Me Love.” (Which is a cool song with some very weird Hare Krishna lyrics.)

Anyway, when you think of a song like that — or any other peace and love sort of song — you naturally think of the political left. They’re the ones who glom onto that stuff as if “all you need is love” is some sort of wise political philosophy.

Never mind that you’re sleeping around, spreading STDs, making children outside of wedlock, etc. You feel good because it’s all about love, man, and you’re not judging anybody. (Or so you tell yourself.)

The left has captured that “love and peace and tolerance” angle in the popular imagination, but not because they deserve it. It’s a case of seeming all peace and love, but not living up to it.

It’s like your two uncles. One of them is always laughing, telling you not to worry, to have a good time, to hang out with fun people, to not be so uptight, etc., while the other one is always telling you to invest, to do your homework, to make good friends, etc.

Which one is the loving one? Which advice sounds like “peace and love,” and which advice actually is “peace and love”?

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-12-01  ::  Crowhill

Haunted by your own creation

by Crowhill on 1 December 2016

A long, long time ago I wrote a story about John Matthews and Jillian Collins. I worked on that story for years. Writing, rewriting, revising, changing things around. Then I set it aside and wrote a completely different story — about the same two characters. Then another. Then two more.

I thought I had them out of my system, but recently another John and Jillian tale grabbed onto me. I just finished the first draft this morning.

Will these two haunt me my whole life?

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-12-01  ::  Crowhill

Online radicalization of young white men? (Oops!)

by Crowhill on 30 November 2016

(Apparently the story on which this post is based was a wildly successful troll. See Jeff’s comment below.)

This is absolutely hilarious. You have to read this article about the online radicalization of young white men.

‘Alt-right’ online poison nearly turned me into a racist

The guy — uh, wait. I assume it’s a guy. He refers to his wife, but that doesn’t prove anything these days.

So the author started listening to Sam Harris and Milo Yiannopoulos and was so afraid of the ideas that he revolted in terror and scrambled back to his safe, progressive rabbit hole.

But the funny part is at the end.

It hit me like a ton of bricks. Online radicalisation of young white men. It’s here, it’s serious, and I was lucky to be able to snap out of it when I did.

Yes, he’s so brave.

But this is such a classic reaction.

Islamic lunatics do crazy, evil stuff, so to maintain their feeling of fair-mindedness the left has to search around for somebody on the other side who does equally crazy, evil stuff. And they latch onto Christians. Yeah, that’s the ticket. They also do crazy, evil stuff. Or at least they did six centuries ago. Aha! (All’s fair in delusional moral equivalency.)

In a similar way, we have this on-going problem of people being radicalized by Islamic rhetoric, so the left has to desperately hunt around for some right-wing equivalence. And this is what they come up with? People who listen to Milo and Sam Harris?

Sure. Because Milo is telling people to attack innocents with knives, and Harris is encouraging people to fly planes into buildings. And both of them want women in the hijab — preferably at home, and never driving a car. And Milo has been known to push homosexuals off the roofs of buildings. Or … at least to consider throwing himself off of one. Or something like that.


6 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-11-30  ::  Crowhill

How Facebook twists your world

by Crowhill on 30 November 2016

This is very interesting. Blue feed, red feed shows what you would have seen on Facebook based on your political bias.

1 comment  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-11-30  ::  Crowhill

Trump needs to learn from Obama’s mistake

by Crowhill on 29 November 2016

I have often criticized Obama and the Democrats for ramming through a very partisan agenda with a slim majority. While it’s possible to do — they (barely) had the power to do it — it’s not a wise way to govern. It makes more sense to govern with the consent of as many of the people as you can get, and that doesn’t mean running off into extreme stuff.

So, following that logic, Trump should focus on things that have broad support. Infrastructure spending, for example. Or a tweak to Obamacare that keeps its popular provisions but introduces some reforms.

Unfortunately, what everybody talks about is how they have to “come through on their promises,” which means they’re going to run off into extreme stuff.

It’s a bad deal either way. If Trump doesn’t try to do what he promised, people will be really, really mad. But if he does try to do what he promised, other people will be really, really mad.

4 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-11-29  ::  Crowhill

Trump’s Muslim registry — fake news from the MSM

by Crowhill on 29 November 2016

This article on ‘fake news’ has a very interesting tidbit about Trump’s Muslim registry.

Trump's Muslim registry

Photo by Ranoush.

This kind of story is precisely why people don’t trust the media, and why I don’t trust crazy claims in general. Things are rarely half as crazy as people want you to believe.

Take recent headlines announcing that the incoming Trump administration is planning to establish a “Muslim registry” or a “registry for Muslims,” wording which seems to imply that all Muslims in America, even citizens, would be required to register. …

Such a registry would certainly be shockingly un-American — not to mention unconstitutional. Yet a closer look at the articles under these headlines shows that this is not what’s being proposed.

Trump may revive a program that was in place from 2001 to 2011; according to The Washington Post, that system “required people from countries deemed ‘higher risk’ to undergo interrogations and fingerprinting upon arrival” and, in some cases, “to follow a parole-like system by periodically checking in with local authorities.”

Most of the countries identified as high-risk were majority-Muslim, and civil rights groups charged that the program targeted Muslims. But to call such a program a “Muslim registry” creates an essentially false impression — which is what many people were undoubtedly left with if they did not read the story carefully, or only saw the buzz about it in the social media.

The press has collectively lost its ability to interrogate itself and check its own biases. Or, as the article puts it, “the media have a very real tendency to fall for narratives that are seen as advancing a ‘good cause.'”

In other words, they’re suckers for stories that they want to believe.

“So is everybody else,” you might say.

Yes, but part of being a reporter is to learn to compensate for that and get past it. The media has completely failed to do that.

The whole story is worth reading. (HT Instapundit.)

2 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-11-29  ::  Crowhill

I read this idea in a Creationist magazine about 30 years ago

by Crowhill on 28 November 2016

I’m not advocating creationism, I just find this amusing.

Scientists to test theory about light that could completely change our view of the universe and prove Einstein wrong

… the theory suggests that actually in the very early universe, light might have travelled much faster than its current speed.

And no, the new theory does not support the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old.

2 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-11-28  ::  Crowhill

Facebook is not a place for serious material

by Crowhill on 28 November 2016

A little cross-post here from my publishing blog. In my latest I urge publishers not to contribute to the Facebook empire.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-11-28  ::  Crowhill

2016-11-22 :: Crowhill // General
The Pareto Principle
2016-11-19 :: Crowhill // General
Hymns vs hip hop
2016-11-17 :: Crowhill // General
They still don’t get it