Author: Crowhill Report

The Coronavirus seems scary.

We like to think that we’re pretty safe in the modern world. When we get sick, we go to the doctor and get some amazing modern medicine, and we get better. Even horrible things like cancer seem to be yielding to advances in medicine.

But … there have been dreadful illnesses in the past (even the relatively recent past) that have wiped out huge numbers of people. Why should we feel we are exempt?

The question remains … should we panic or not? Here’s my quick over / under on it.

Reasons to panic.

* The Chinese can’t be trusted, part 1. They’re under-reporting cases and keeping this under wraps.
* The Chinese can’t be trusted, part 2. This might be a virus that escaped from one of their weapons labs, and they don’t want to let the rest of the world know.
* Despite immense incentives to keep people with coronavirus alive (to avoid panic), the death toll is mounting.
* So far, the virus has been in relatively advanced cultures. If it were to hit the third world, absolute chaos would ensue.

Reasons not to panic.

* Unlike diseases of the past, we have incredible infrastructure to deal with this. The CDC and other very competent professionals are on the case.
* People die from the flu every year. This is just another version of the flu.
* The media is in the business of scaring us. Scary stories increase eyeballs and clicks. So don’t believe what you hear.
* There have been lots of “end of the world” scares recently that fizzled. Why should we believe this one?

What do you think?

You may have seen the video showing two different Elizabeth Warren interviews where she is clearly following a script. Her monologue in each case follows the same theme, the same order, and often uses exactly the same words. But not always.

It seems funny at first, but if you spend any time at all thinking about it, it makes perfect sense.

In college, I spent a lot of time listening to Tom Short, an open-air preacher. There were several questions/comments that would come up again and again — e.g., “what about the heathen in Africa?,” or “what about all the different translations of the Bible?,” or “love is all you need, Tom” — and over the years, Tom refined his answers. It got to the point that I could predict what he was going to say. Almost word for word.

When someone spends a lot of time speaking publicly, they develop patterns and scripts. They have talking points they want to communicate, and they have ways of answering certain questions. They tell the same stories and illustrations. Over and over and over again.

With that background, when I first started reading critical analyses of the Gospels, I was somewhat surprised that New Testament scholars seem oblivious to this. They assumed that if a passage in Luke sounds like a passage in Mark, both passages had to be relating the same event.

Of course they might be, but it’s also a dead certainty that most of Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament were said over and over and over again. In different cities, at different times, with different audiences, … but sometimes in the same city with similar audiences.

There were certain hecklers who came back, time and again, to challenge Tom with the same sorts of questions. And I’m sure the same was true with Jesus.

“Remember the time Jesus was asked about divorce by the Pharisees?” someone might ask.

“Ha!” St. Peter might say. “I can think of at least ten times.”

Remember the conditions for the replacement for Judas?

Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us — beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us — one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.

These were people who heard Jesus speak again and again and again. They got the rhythm of his answers. They knew phrases and favorite words. They knew the illustrations he would use.

Is it any surprise that there might be several different versions of key parables and stories?

I don’t think so. And the fact that they don’t precisely agree doesn’t mean they’re inaccurate.

The boys drink and review Bygone Snowfall from DuClaw brewing company to prepare for a conversation about impeachment.

This program was recorded when impeachment was supposed to be over. I.e., right after the Senate had voted to acquit. So we were supposed to think that was the end. But … is it?

P&C review the meaning and purpose of impeachment in general, and comment on this process and how it was managed. (Spoiler — Crowhill explains how he changed his mind on the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”)

Pigweed and Crowhill do a “Nooze and Booze” episode on the passing madness.

Pigweed and Crowhill drink and review Lagunita’s Brown Shugga, a brewing mistake that turned into a “special ale” in their regular rotation. It’s quite good.

Once they lubricate the mind muscles, the boys turn their attention to recent proposals by some Democrats to make college free.

Is free college a good idea?

No, it’s not!

First, not everyone should go to college. College should be for the intellectual elite. Many people should pursue trades, not degrees.

Second, colleges are hardly “institutions of higher learning” any more. They’re mostly left-wing indoctrination centers. The liberals want free college because they know that colleges are mostly liberal and they want to push the culture to the left.

Free college is stupid enough, but it gets even worse. What about proposals to forgive student debt?

If we forgive the debt of people who made wrong decisions and got into a lot of debt, what do we do with the frugal people who paid their way? Do they get paid back?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren had her “Joe the Plumber” moment when a man confronted her with exactly that question.

It’s a good question.

Free college puts people in situations where they are likely to fail. It takes people who might have been successful and happy in a trade and makes them failures in something they aren’t prepared for. That’s not helping.