The Crowhill Weblog - Content

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

Sites endorsed by Crowhill:
Crowhill Publishing Homebrewbeer.biz
The Krehbiel Report on Publishing


What if Jeb! had won?

by Crowhill on 10 May 2016

Seeing all the hand-wringing about the GOP unifying behind Trump, I wonder what arguments the establishment types would be using against people who couldn’t bring themselves to support Bush.

I think the two-party system is worn out. Neither party would have been able to unite under any of their candidates, and the Democrats are going to have trouble uniting behind Hillary. The parties are too fractured, and the left-right / Democrat-Republican split doesn’t work as well as it used to. (Not that it ever worked all that well.)

Will we finally see the emergence of serious third parties? I hope so.

2 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-10  ::  Crowhill



I don’t like Trump …

by Crowhill on 10 May 2016

… but Buchanan is exactly right about Paul Ryan.

 ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-10  ::  Crowhill



It’s time to end the farce re: sex discrimination

by Crowhill on 10 May 2016

The Obama Justice Department is claiming that the North Carolina law that says people have to use the bathroom that corresponds to their sex at birth is unlawful because it discriminates on the basis of sex. Yes, of course it does. There’s a door that says “men” and there’s a door that says “women.”

The short-sighted people who passed those laws in the first place should have known that this day would come. In the 50s and 60s, it went without saying that “no discrimination on the basis of sex” didn’t apply to everything — like bathrooms, or women in combat, or different sporting events for men and women. Only a lunatic would have taken it that far, and I’m sure all the “progressives” chortled and sniggered at the people who claimed that one day it would be taken that far.

In retrospect, we laugh at the naivete of the chortlers.

The truth is that “no discrimination on the basis of sex” is an absurd concept unless it has clear boundaries and exceptions.

It’s coming to the point where we either have to go all in — men and women showering in the same locker rooms, fighting side by side, and lining up opposite each other on the gridiron — or we have to abandon (or at least put some boundaries around) this notion of “no discrimination on the basis of sex.”

I vote for the latter. End the insanity.

A clear lesson of all this is that when there’s some dispute about how something might be interpreted, clarify it in writing. Imagine all the trouble that would have been prevented if, when they passed the laws about sex discrimination, they’d added some clarifying remarks about what it didn’t apply to.

Most lawmakers are lawyers. You’d think they’d know that.

2 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-10  ::  Crowhill



MKUltra?

by Crowhill on 9 May 2016

It’s weird the things you can learn off the Internet.

A black female rapper endorsed Trump, which some people will find odd (not me), so I read the story. In Azealia Banks’ tweets she says this.

Trump [hasn’t] been groomed and programmed on some mkultra tip [trip?] to DO & SAY what the establishment wants him to

So of course I had to look up Project MDUltra. It’s weird stuff.

3 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-09  ::  Crowhill



The next mistake in Bible translations?

by Crowhill on 9 May 2016

Hebrews 9:27 says “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” But that’s not sensitive enough for the weirdos who put together the translation used in most Roman Catholic churches, so they changed it to “men and women.”

Never mind that this messes up the parallelism in the passage (men die once, Christ died once). No, it’s far more important that we assuage the feelings of people who want to take offense.

But as I heard this atrocity read from the pulpit on Sunday, I realized they didn’t go far enough. I can’t tell from a quick search if there are now 51, 58 or 63 different genders, but given the mixed up state of the country I’m sure there are some people who don’t identify as a man or a woman. Won’t they feel left out?

So perhaps the geniuses in the translation cabal will have to amend the passage again so that it reads “it is appointed for human beings to die once ….” That is, they’ll have to use a word that encompasses all of humanity without distinction about gender.

But … isn’t that what “man” means.

2 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-09  ::  Crowhill



What’s wrong with single payer?

by Crowhill on 6 May 2016

Doctors call for single-payer health care

I realize that the economics of the health care industry are very complex, that there are all sorts of strange incentives going on, and I don’t pretend to understand how it all works. So I can’t speak with any authority on this question. And I’m not an advocate for the status quo. I have no reason to believe that we’re doing everything right now.

But there are some things I wonder about.

Will it be done legally? There are all sorts of things the government can possibly do, some bad and some good. But before doing anything, we need to ask whether the government has the authority to do it. Our government is supposed to have limited, delegated powers. It can’t just go and do whatever seems right.

If we want the government to do some new thing that the constitution doesn’t currently authorize, fine. Amend the constitution to give the government that power. But don’t just allow the government to run about doing whatever.

Is government the right solution? “Universal health care” and “single payer” is not synonymous with “the government has to do it all.” Aside from the question of the government’s legal authority to do something, we also need to ask if the government is the right institution to do it. If, for example, we believe that it’s best for every child to breast feed, that doesn’t mean we need millions of government wet nurses.

Government is not always the best solution. And aside from that, there is a legitimate argument to be made that government shouldn’t have control over too many things, or too much of any one thing. Putting government in charge of health care would be an enormous expansion of an already bloated government.

Also, we have some experience with this. It’s called the VA.

How will this affect innovation? Profit is a great motivator. Will drug companies still be able to profit from new drugs? Will doctors be able to profit from new procedures and techniques? If not, where will innovation come from?

Also, drugs, devices and procedures aren’t the only kinds of innovation. A lot of innovation has to do with changing structures and incentives, eliminating unnecessary steps, cutting through paperwork and bureaucracy. Government doesn’t have a very good track record for those things.

It’s all well and good to stand up and shout that health care is a universal human right. But even if we grant that premise, it doesn’t necessarily lead to a government-run, single payer system.

1 comment  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-06  ::  Crowhill



Frank the hippie pope is at it again

by Crowhill on 6 May 2016

I’ve been slowly digesting a very small book called The Cube and the Cathedral by George Weigel, which tries to analyze the insanity that has taken over Europe. Rejecting their Christian past and allowing themselves to be reconquered by Muslim immigrants seems consistent with a death wish.

Previous popes encouraged Europe to be true to their Christian history, and Weigel makes some very interesting arguments that Europe’s underlying problem is theological, and that while western values fit naturally with Christianity, they don’t fit with the two growing ideologies: secularism and Islam. European values can’t be supported by secularism and are fundamentally alien to Islam.

Examples of the latter include …

  • Christianity generally asserts (with some exceptions) that God gives men freedom to believe, while Islam believes in fate and coercion. Christianity persuades while Islam threatens.
  • Christianity limits the roles of church and state, and regards them as separate entities. There is no such distinction in Islam.
  • The Trinity itself speaks of unity and cooperation, while Islam asserts monarchial dominance and ends up respecting only power.

There’s more in the book, and perhaps I’ll write about it later, but it’s interesting stuff and worth chewing on.

In comes the hippy pope with predictable nonsense.

No, Frank, being charitable towards immigrants does not mean you have to allow them to overrun your country and remake your culture, but such distinctions are too subtle for him. He has to hector and lecture and go on with his loosey goosey morality.

The church and the world have survived worse, but this pope is definitely not a man for his time.

4 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-06  ::  Crowhill



Read a book, save the world

by Crowhill on 4 May 2016

Seriously.

We need to deprive the left of the power to do this sort of thing, and that means turn your eyeballs elsewhere.

2 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-04  ::  Crowhill



Hiring managers should ignore “academic” credentials (with some very limited exceptions)

by Crowhill on 4 May 2016

Colleges have become a joke. The war on men, the war on any idea that upsets somebody, the ideological imbalance of the faculty, the creation of safe spaces, the limits on free speech, the pandering to the sissies ….

It’s gone too far to continue to believe that whatever value students might be getting from their education is enough to offset the lunacy. And, of course, it costs too much!

Generally speaking, I think businesses should discount degrees. Simply ignore them. Or, even better, count the degree against the applicant rather than for him.

Obviously there would be exceptions. You want doctors and lawyers to be trained. But too much of what is taught on campus is just propaganda and indoctrination.

Here’s an interesting article on how bad education has become. I Was Disinvited on Campus: The anti-free speech takeover is so complete that now the fear of stirring a protest can determine what ideas students will hear.

1 comment  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-04  ::  Crowhill



Trump will destroy Hillary, if she survives to the election

by Crowhill on 4 May 2016

You would think that by now the pundits would realize they have misunderestimated Donald Trump. They’ve been wrong, wrong, wrong, horribly wrong, and wrong again, and now they want us to believe their latest prognostications. It’s rather comical.

If Hillary survives to the general election, Trump will demolish her.

Sanders has a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary does.

5 comments  ::  Add your comment  ::  2016-05-04  ::  Crowhill

2016-04-27 :: Crowhill // General
A peak into HRC’s mind
+ 9 comments
2016-04-27 :: Crowhill // General
From my pocket distraction device
2016-04-25 :: Crowhill // General
Is it surprising …
+ 2 comments