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

Notable ignorance about modesty

by Crowhill on 13 October 2015

The Naked City is about women in Times’ Square exposing their breasts. (You have to pay $0.25 to read the whole story.) It’s one of those “fairness” things, you know. If men can do it, why can’t women?

The article references Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell thus: “Noting that women are more likely to object to exposed breasts than men, Rampell hypothesizes that these objections are rooted in a kind of self-hatred.”

That’s a good example of how modern views make people stupid. Rampell doesn’t seem to understand the basics of human sexuality.

Women have far more reason to shame sluts and immodest women than men do, and it has nothing to do with self hatred. It has to do with maintaining a high value on sex by keeping it rare and intimate. If sluts and prostitutes and “girls gone wild” are allowed to lower the value of sex, it’s women who suffer.

Sensible women know that, but sensible women are a rare commodity at the Post.

The rest of the article is also interesting, if you want to shell out the $0.25.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-13  ::  Crowhill

Will they go after Sanders’ socialist views in the debate tonight?

by Crowhill on 13 October 2015


According to Wikipedia, Democratic Socialism is “committed to systemic transformation of the economy … by transitioning from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership.”

Maybe that represents Sanders’ views and maybe it doesn’t. Will they question him on it?

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-13  ::  Crowhill

Are polls a scam?

by Crowhill on 13 October 2015

This article raises some interesting questions about the use of public opinion polling to determine who gets to be in the debates.

The Biggest Scam of the 2016 Election

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-13  ::  Crowhill

Mitt Romney for Speaker?

by Crowhill on 9 October 2015

I’ve said a few times that it’s important to try to get your news from different sources.

I try. I really do. I go to NPR and CNN and … even Vox. I just rarely find anything interesting. But Vox came through today.

House Republicans should elect Mitt Romney speaker. No, really.

It sounds like a reasonable argument. My biggest misgiving is that the advice comes from Ezra Klein, and Republicans usually end up hurting themselves when they take advice from a liberal.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-09  ::  Crowhill

Women just won’t be in movies any more, I guess

by Crowhill on 9 October 2015

How will all this “Equal Pay Act” absurdity affect movies?

It’s well known that actors make more than actresses, and that’s not because they do harder work. It’s because the actor is usually the draw for the movie.

At least that’s the way I understand it. As I read somewhere recently, people saw Iron Man because of Robert Downey Jr. and despite Gwyneth Paltrow.

How will demanding “equal pay for women” work in such a situation?

The answer is obvious. They’ll just cast fewer women, or cut their screen time so much that they can justify the pay disparity.

The other option, I suppose, is to pull a Shakespeare and have men play women on screen.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-09  ::  Crowhill

As devices collect more and more user data, will publishers be able to create better content?

by Crowhill on 9 October 2015

See The future of reading and content creation.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-09  ::  Crowhill

Trump’s prophetic voice

by Crowhill on 8 October 2015

Most people associate prophecy with telling the future. It’s more about interpreting history. A prophet explains the trajectory of events. Why are things happening this way? And, given that pattern, how might they turn next?

Obama had a little bit of a prophetic voice with his idea of hope and change, and “transforming America.” People wanted change — but ISTM they weren’t certain what kind of change they wanted. They just wanted something different, and Obama offered that. Details weren’t necessary, so he didn’t give many.

Now, people are frustrated. Nothing is getting done, and it seems as if we’re falling behind. Even losing.

When Obama had his hissy fit about gun control, he implied that we have these great ideas and workable solutions all ready to go, just queued up to be passed into law, but evil people controlled by the NRA are preventing it.

That’s the tenor of contemporary politics from all sides. “We have lots of ideas, we just can’t get them done because blah blah blah.”

Enter Trump. He’s a guy who gets things done. He has a TV show where he makes decisions. He turned beauty contests into a franchised business. There are huge buildings with his name on them.

And he has a simple, understandable explanation for why nothing is happening. Because everybody is stupid. More than that, they’re not in it to win.

Trump is offering an explanation and a vision. It’s crude and simple — somewhat like “hope and change” — but at least it’s something.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-08  ::  Crowhill

Why even Trump or Carson would be better than any Democrat

by Crowhill on 8 October 2015

Trump is a clown with impulse control problems and Carson would be completely out of his league as president. If I could select the next president from the Republican field, I would probably pick Rubio. He’s inexperienced, but he’s incredibly smart and I agree with most of his positions.

But when it comes right down to it, I’d pick any one of them over a Democrat, because I’m not sure the country can endure another Democratic president.

Don’t get me wrong. The country won’t fall to the communists. There won’t be mayhem in the streets or a zombie apocalypse. There could well be 60s-style riots and such, but we survived that. Rather, the threat of another Democratic president is that we are dangerously close to losing our system of government.

As I see it there are three foundations to our government: (1) delegated authority, (2) separation of powers, and (3) checks and balances. All three of those things are in serious trouble, and a Democratic president would hasten their destruction.

Delegated authority means that each organ of government does what it’s authorized to do and no more than that. Separation of powers means that each part of the government has its proper sphere and it doesn’t interfere with the others, while checks and balances means that the varous branches of government have the ability to rein in the other branches if they get out of hand.

None of these things are working very well right now. We have laws and executive actions that go beyond the delegated authority of the federal government. Both the president and the Supreme Court act like legislators. And Congress and the states have been horribly remiss in reining in these excesses.

So far these abuses of power haven’t been all that awful. They’ve been serious — maybe even egregious — but we can recover. E.g., the same-sex marriage decision was an absolute monstrosity, but the country will survive it.

My fear is that we’re getting close to the point where there will be no turning back. The very concept of limited government is mocked when it’s not ignored in today’s political discussions. The Supreme Court is no longer expected to call balls and strikes according to the written rules, but to bring about cosmic justice according to whatever the current social norm happens to be.

This is incredibly dangerous territory. We will either stop this nonsense and go back to the rule of law, or we’ll be ruled by petty bureaucrats, lawyers, tyrants and the latest rant on social media.

You might be wondering what this has to do with electing a Democrat because every president — Republican and Democrat — has tried to expand executive power. That’s simply what people in power do. They grasp for more of it.

The problem is that conservatives are unable to fight this process. They continue to bring feather pillows to gun fights while the liberals fight dirty and take more and more ground. Republicans are simply incapable of standing up to a Democratic president or reining in an out of control judiciary.

Democrats aren’t perfect, but they are far better at imposing their will and opposing their enemies. This is partly because they have the media on their side. Because of this, liberals are able to slow our slide into lawlessness when conservatives are in power. Conservatives are simply not able to do it. There are reasons for that, but the reasons don’t change the fact, which is that conservatives are inept and ineffective in this struggle.

If we have another Democrat in the White House, both presidential and federal power will increase, and we’ll have even more liberal Supreme Court justices who have no respect for the rule of law.

It’s not (generally speaking) the actual decisions that are the problem — taken individually. It’s that there’s no restraint on them. It’s a continual slide into lawlessness, where the actual words on the page make no difference.

Both parties are guilty of this, but the Republicans are taking us downhill in a child’s wagon while Democrats are setting a land speed record.

From this perspective, Trump as president might be the best thing to happen to this country. Democrats would fight him tooth and nail, and the media would be his relentless enemy.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-08  ::  Crowhill

How Biden could win in a landslide

by Crowhill on 8 October 2015

The Republican field is a mess. Despite having several very serious and well-qualified candidates, Trump and Carson are leading — which demonstrates that the Republican Party is in such awful disarray that a half-decent Democrat should be able to sweep the field. (In case you didn’t get the implication, Trump and Carson are neither serious nor well-qualified.)

So who is this Democrat champion?

Bernie Sanders isn’t even a Democrat, and he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. The man is far too extreme and will never win.

Hillary Clinton repels men with epic skill and isn’t even doing well with women. Even without her self-destructive email scandal, she’s toast.

The other Democrats can’t get out of single digits, which leaves us with Joe Biden.

People have largely forgotten that he’s a loose-lipped goof and that his previous campaigns were destroyed by a plagiarism scandal. He’s enjoying the fact that, next to sophomoric and incompetent Barack Obama, he looks like the grown up in the room.

But there’s more than that. Biden is neither stridently pro-choice nor rabidly anti-gun. He also seems to be an advocate for the working man. If he were to play that correctly — offering a moderate position on abortion and gun rights, and promising a “tough but distant” foreign policy — he could clean up the field.

I know the Democratic Party regards abortion as a sacrament and has no toleration for anything short of full-on infanticide, but … what choice would Democratic voters have? They’re not going to support a Republican, and if they had a blue-collar / not shrill / experienced fellow like Biden ….

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Biden in the White House. I would prefer any of the Republicans to him. Yes, even the clown candidates. But I sincerely think that Biden could win in a landslide if he ran a smart campaign and tried to appeal to the middle.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-08  ::  Crowhill

No, Father Barron, bishops do not have “families” in that sense

by Crowhill on 7 October 2015

Bishop Robert Barron is a reliably interesting fellow who usually has a good take on currents events and issues. He recently had some interaction with Chris Matthews, who is reliably a blustering idiot.

He also had some discussions with Brian Williams, who I had thought was taking an extended leave of absense from pretending to be a newsman, but apparently he’s still around.

“Isn’t it odd,” Williams asked during the coverage of the pope’s visit, “that those without families are setting the moral agenda for families?”

Yes, of course it’s odd, but this is the sort of thing that gets conservative Roman Catholics all riled up, so Bishop Barron had to reply.

He said that priests actually do have families — not in the obvious sense that they have mothers and fathers and siblings — but that “their parish is their family.” (Isn’t that precious.) He went on to say that his bishop’s ring is a wedding ring, “for it symbolizes our marriage to the people we serve.”

Listen, dude, nobody but me is married to my wife, and it’s simply inappropriate for you to imply otherwise. You can make up all sorts of “symbolic” silliness if you want to, but … no, you’re not married, and despite your weird attempt to evade Williams’ question, it is very strange that a bunch of celibates are deciding on the moral agenda for families.

This next comment is going to offend some people, but it makes an important point so I’ll risk it.

I was chatting with some buddies recently about this and that, and one of them mentioned a woman he knew who … uh, services her husband every morning. “It takes five minutes of my time,” she allegedly said to my friend, “and he’s the happiest man in the world and will do anything for me.”

That woman should be the keynote speaker at the Synod on Families.

The point is that there are things about married life that need another point of view. Priests and bishops hear about family issues in the confessional, and in that respect they might end up knowing more about marriage than married couples do. But there’s a practical knowledge about marriage that they lack. Both perspectives are necessary, and the idea that a bunch of celibates can figure it out on their own should be quite strange to anyone.

9 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2015-10-07  ::  Crowhill

2015-10-01 :: Crowhill // General
This made me chuckle
2015-09-30 :: Crowhill // General
Obama’s war on due process