Author: Crowhill Report

P&C drink and review a hazy IPA from Sam Adams, then do five topics in five minutes each.

#1 – What’s up with the Game Stop / WallStreetBets / Robinhood deal?
#2 – Has the pill changed what women like in men?
#3 – Will the Biden administration forgive student loans?
#4 – Awards shows have become pointless
#5 – What is right-wing?

When and why does the president have this authority?

P&C drink and review Pigweed’s homebrewed winter warmer, then discuss executive orders.

What is the function and purpose of an executive order? Is it a way to get around Congress? What are the limits? Is this one of the ways the imperial presidency has usurped the legislative function, or is it a valid power of the executive?

The boys look at the history of this strange executive power and comment on its use.

P&C drink and review Dirty Little Freak, a flavorful brown ale from DuClaw Brewery, then discuss the Enlightenment. 

What was the Enlightenment, when did it happen, and what ideas did it produce? Why has it come under fire from some quarters today? Should we value the Enlightenment, or is it just another example of racism and white privilege? 

I’ve been enjoying Andrew Doyle’s “Culture Wars” podcast. In the episode called The New Clerisy, which is very interesting for many reasons, Tom Holland, the author of Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind, pins some of the origins of wokeness on evangelicalism.

He makes an interesting point. The basic argument is that evangelicalism involves a conversion from one frame of mind to another after an infusion of grace, which then justifies a kind of morally superior (awakened) attitude.

What it lacks, of course, is the idea of original sin and the virtue of forgiveness. But it’s still an interesting parallel.

The whole show is worth your time.

Those words have become common accusations, often tossed about with little or no justification, but have you noticed the disconnect between them? An “-ist” ending “denotes a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.,” while “phobic” denotes fear.

The simplest explanation (ISTM) is that it’s hard to come up with a decent -ist word regarding the trans issue. Sexist is already taken, and I don’t believe there’s a word that means something like “believing there are two sexes and you’re stuck with the one you were dealt.”

Still, accusing a person of holding to an (allegedly mistaken) ideology is a different thing from saying a person has a phobia.

Or … is it?

I said “allegedly mistaken” as if this whole thing involves some sort of appeal to truth. But it’s not about truth, is it? It’s really more about (alleged) hatred, and hatred and fear often go together. From that perspective, the words are about the same, in a post-modern sort of way.