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

No, it’s okay to criticize Republicans

by Crowhill on 2 May 2016

I saw this in my twitter feed today.


From one perspective, it does seem to cast a pretty awful light on Boehner, and on other Republicans who are willing to say awful things about their fellow Republicans that they won’t say about Democrats.

Someone might object that Cruz is simply a more loathsome person than Obama, so it makes perfect sense to call Cruz Lucifer, but to never use such language about Obama.

First, I think it unlikely that Cruz is quite that loathsome, and there are reasons to loathe Obama as well, so … that seems like a thin reed to me. And second, I don’t think this is limited to Obama and Cruz. I think we can see it in other examples as well. Trump. Palin. Coulter.

There are loathsome characters on all sides of politics, but my general impression is that if you use the kind of language against a Democrat that is regularly used against Republicans (even by Republicans), then you’d be called out on it. Not ony that, but every other Republican who went on any national TV show would be asked to repudiate your remarks.

Has anyone been asked to repudiate Boehner’s comments on Cruz? They’ve been asked to comment on them. To rejoice in them. To pile on. To calculate the political significance. But has anyone been asked to repudiate those comments?

4 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-02  ::  Crowhill

Atheism and the coercive power of the state

by Crowhill on 1 May 2016

If you haven’t listened to Stefan Molyneux, you should. In this video he mentions two interesting ideas about atheism. I’ll state his ideas, and then I’ll embroider them a touch.

The first is that atheism is a consequence of statism.

If you want the state to be the authority, you need to push other authorities away. It irks the statist that some people get exemptions from their wonderful ideas for reforming societies just because those people are religious. Therefore religion is in the way, therefore we need to debunk religion.

The second is that people need to have some authority in their lives, telling them what to do, so if you push out God, the state has to take its place.

Everybody looks around the world and sees lots of rotten people who are messing things up (from their point of view). If the believer wonders, “How am I going to get these rotten people to be decent?” his answer is, “I’ll preach to them and get them to voluntarily submit to God.” If the atheist wonders the same question, his answer is, “I’ll pass laws requiring them to be decent, and then send men with guns to enforce it.”

5 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-01  ::  Crowhill

What do you make of Boehner’s hatred of Cruz?

by Crowhill on 28 April 2016

I’ve heard stories that nobody who knows Ted Cruz likes him. Nobody liked him in college. Nobody liked him at law school. Nobody likes him in Congress.

Obviously there would be some exceptions. His kids probably like him. And his mother.

I don’t know if the stories are true, but apparently John Boehner really dislikes the guy.

But … is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Boehner was dismissed by conservatives because he seemed too establishment, too much of a compromiser, not able to counter Obama and not able to advance an effective conservative agenda. I don’t know if that’s fair, but that’s the rap I heard.

So, if that kind of a guy hates you, is that a plus or a minus?

14 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-04-28  ::  Crowhill

Reaping the fatherless society we’ve been sowing

by Crowhill on 28 April 2016

…we have spent the last 50 years tearing down the position of husband and father, and now we are surprised that more and more men (on the margins) don’t aspire to become husbands and fathers.


2 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-04-28  ::  Crowhill

A peak into HRC’s mind

by Crowhill on 27 April 2016

My nephew is an all-around network security / infrastructure guy. He was explaining a few things about the Hillary email issue, and he says there is documented proof that HRC knew the danger of using an insecure phone. For example, she was warned that before she even get off the tarmac in China, there could already be malware on her phone that exposes her data to Chinese intelligence.

That’s not science fiction, or some crazy, unlikely thing. It’s an easy thing for hackers to do, and they almost certainly did it. If not the Chinese, then somebody.

But we have to set the scene. When Hillary became Secretary of State, she asked for a secure blackberry like the one Obama uses. Whoever was in charge of such things denied it and told her she had to jump through their hoops the way they dictated — e.g., only use secure terminals in the State Department, or … something like that.

IMO Hillary’s request was reasonable and whoever denied it should be fired and banned from government work.

Anyway, that’s the background. No, Hillary, you can’t have a secure blackberry. We’re going to make you dance our little dance while we sit back and rejoice in our petty bureaucratic power. Ha ha.

Then Clinton decides she’s going to use her unsecure blackberry despite all that. She’s told of the risks. She’s told that she’s putting very secure information — like her calendar, for example — in extreme jeopardy. And she does it anyway.

Think about that for a moment. What was going through her head? How did she justify that?

She must have been thinking something like this.

Well, I have to do my job, and that requires that I have a blackberry with me, so if they’re not going to give me a secure one, it’s their fault if the data is leaked. And as a side benefit, once they see that I’m going to use a phone anyway, maybe this will get them off their high horse and give me what I asked for in the first place.

There’s a word for that sort of behavior, and it rhymes with witchy.

If you don’t do things my way, I’ll burn the place down and blame you for it. It’s all your fault because you didn’t listen to me and do what I asked.

9 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-04-27  ::  Crowhill

From my pocket distraction device

by Crowhill on 27 April 2016

A friend sent me this quote from Amusing Ourselves to Death.

We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

Interesting stuff.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-04-27  ::  Crowhill

Selective indignation from the liberal press

by Crowhill on 27 April 2016

Networks Blackout Hassan Scandal: Zero coverage from national media on scandal rocking boarding school, Senate race

Because it helps the Democrats.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-04-27  ::  Crowhill

Why early polls are unreliable

by Crowhill on 26 April 2016

This is very interesting.

As long as Cruz and Kasich are in the race, our minds allow us to imagine an alternative to Trump that is some sort of magical unicorn of goodness. Our brains are conflating all the non-Trump Republicans (including Romney and Ryan) into some sort of imaginary “other” that has qualities we like. Likewise, on the Democrat side, your brain is combining Clinton and Sanders as one conflated Democrat option. And Bernie brings some good qualities to that imaginary creature (such as the appearance of honesty).

Your brain has not yet compared Trump (alone) to Clinton (alone). You have only compared conflated concepts of a Clinton/Sanders creature to a Trump/Cruz/Kasich/Romney/Ryan creature. You think that isn’t happening in YOUR head, but it is. That’s how all of us are wired. We don’t compartmentalize as well as we think.

Imagine Hillary having a coughing fit during a debate with Trump.

18 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-04-26  ::  Crowhill

I can hardly believe that serious people are actually debating the bathroom stuff

by Crowhill on 26 April 2016

When the country was debating same-sex marriage, people kept asking what harm it would do to allow men to marry men. Now we know at least one of the consequences, which is that we’re debating whether men can pee and shower in the girl’s locker room.

Trying to cure the left’s insanity by humoring it is like trying to cure an alcoholic by giving him the keys to the liquor cabinet.

“He only wants one drink!”

If you’re on the fence about this one, please consider this.

If a woman walked around town naked under a trench coat, and started flashing the men, do you think they’d be upset about it? Would they report it as a crime? Would they feel threatened, or assaulted?

Of course not. Even if she was repulsive, female nakedness is not a threat to men, but the reverse is most definitely true. Women are threatened by male nakedness. (For obvious reasons, and with obvious exceptions.)

But in the mixed up, insane mind of the left, tending to the feelings of a confused man who wants to shower in the women’s locker room because he “identifies” as a woman is more important than the deep-rooted fear that women have of male nakedness.

Who is warring against women, by the way, and who is protecting them?

I had thought that believing in same-sex marriage was the definition of insanity, but, as usual, the left keeps moving the goal posts.

1 comment  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-04-26  ::  Crowhill

Is it surprising …

by Crowhill on 25 April 2016

… that Donald Trump — reality TV star, entertainment exec, etc. — has a better feel on the pulse on the nation than many politicians, pundits and media professionals? It’s not surprising to me. Those folks have literally made a profession of being out of touch.

Among the lessons to be learned from this train-wreck of an election cycle are …

Public morals matter. A moral population would not be supporting Donald Trump. I don’t only mean his philandering and rudeness, but also his disregard for the truth and his lack of a clear guiding philosophy.

Populism is dangerous. Every force in society has to have a counter to it, and that includes the “voice of the people.” But remember, it was arrogance of the parties (the elite) that got us here in the first place. We have not yet achieved (or, perhaps, have lost) the balance between run-away democracy and run-away oligarchy.

A news media that all lives in the same echo chamber is dangerous. The entire media establishment was caught off guard and flat-footed when it came to Trump. Why? Because for all the alleged ideological differences, they all live in the same insular world.

Where, for example, are the Jack Germonds of journalism?

There is a such a drive to enforce the same culture on every news personality — left, right, center doesn’t matter — that it has hampered the ability of the media to get out of their own bubble. That’s part of the reason why talk radio and other forms of media have thrived. The “establishment” media are all cut from the same cloth.

2 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-04-25  ::  Crowhill

2016-04-25 :: Crowhill // General
Is bullying really wrong?
2016-04-25 :: Crowhill // General
The end of the west
2016-04-22 :: Crowhill // General
Not to be insensitive …
2016-04-22 :: Crowhill // General
Forget that this is about Trump …
2016-04-22 :: Crowhill // General
Gutless wonder Republicans
2016-04-20 :: Crowhill // General
The automated con