Author: Crowhill Report

Where equity goes wrong

A friend forwarded this article criticizing Merrick Garland’s views on equity.

Here’s an image people like to use to show why equity is fairer than equality.

Treating everyone “equally” doesn’t work in this situation, since people have different needs. And this is exactly what you would do if you were that dad.

(By the way, why isn’t this image criticized as racist, since it seems to imply that these brown-skinned people can’t afford tickets to the game?)

This is clearly the way we should treat individuals. E.g., Joe doesn’t need any help, so he doesn’t get any. Sam needs a little help, and Ezra needs a lot.

Well and good. The problem is when you start assigning the amount of help that is due based on something other than the amount of help that is needed. If you say, for example, that white people don’t need any help, but all black people do, that’s simply ridiculous. There are plenty of poor white people and rich black people.

The problem with all this “diversity, equity and inclusion” stuff is that it’s not based on individual needs. It’s based on identity politics and group characteristics, and that makes it both racist and foolish.

Ep 110: Plastics

P&C drink and review 51 Rye by Monument City Brewing, then discuss plastic bans, and the pros and cons of plastic.

Plastics reduce food waste. They make cars lighter, and therefore more fuel efficient. They reduce the costs of many products.

But there’s a negative side, some of which is real, and some has been exaggerated out of context.

P&C try to sort it all.

Michael Shermer and the 5 percent

I listened to Michael Shermer interview Sarah Scoles about her work on UFOs, and why people believe we’ve been visited by aliens.

Shermer mentioned a time he was debating a UFO believer, who admitted that the vast majority of alleged sightings are explainable. Let’s say 95%. Shermer asked what it was about some people who feel the need to explain the 5%.

It’s an interesting question, because in some areas, it doesn’t need to be 5 percent. It could just be one individual case.

If somebody could produce Big Foot’s body, or the Lock Ness monster, that would settle the matter.

The question is typically cast as a matter of evidence, but it’s really a matter of belief. Shermer believes there are no aliens, so he feels justified ignoring the five percent, while the other guy believes in aliens, so the five percent is very important to him.

Which belief is justified?

YouTube must be regulated

I was in a weird mood and spent some time this weekend looking up goofy things on YouTube. Alien abductions. Area 54 stuff. “America’s secret book.” Flat-Earth videos.

You can find every kind of crackpot nonsense you like on YouTube — unless is offends Democrats or the approved liberal narrative. Then it can’t be spoken.

YouTube Takes Down Ohio Legislative Testimony, Cites Misinformation

These people have to go. We can’t allow such crass manipulation to continue.

I know some people will say the First Amendment only protects us against government censorship, and private companies can do what they like. That is a short-sighted and, in my opinion, indefensible response to the rampant bias we see on all the tech platforms.

They have become the dominant source of information, and we can’t allow that to be corrupted the way it has been. Free speech has to mean more than “the government can’t censor your speech.”