Author: Crowhill Report

Today I saw a statistic that 40 percent of teens who “come out” (as LGBT+&SGF or whatever) are thrown out of their homes. I doubt that number (97.3% of internet statistics are lies), but I’m sure some percentage of kids are kicked out when they “come out.”

What are we to make of the phenomenon? Should a kid ever get thrown out of his house? And in what situations?

I recently heard an interview with Dennis Prager in which he criticized the notion of “unconditional love.” He says a lot of Christian callers to his radio show promote the idea, but he maintains it’s not biblical and makes no sense.

Hmm. Here’s how I would evaluate the question.

First, we have to make a distinction between (1) unconditional love in the sense that you always want the best for someone, and (2) having no conditions on a relationship — like remaining under Dad’s roof no matter what you do. That is clearly stupid. There has to be a point at which even a beloved son is kicked out.

Second, we have to make a distinction between chosen and unchosen behaviors. For example, if we assume (as seems to be the case) that homosexuality is not a choice, there’s a big difference between kicking a kid out because he’s gay and kicking him out because he keeps bringing his boyfriends home.

It seems some people believe that accepting homosexuality requires accepting anything that homosexuals do, which is ridiculous. Accepting heterosexuality does not mean that you allow your daughter to bring all her boyfriends home.

Third, we have pretty much lost the idea that a family is allowed to have standards. There seems to be an assumption that parents are to love their children unconditionally, by which people mean that they have to put up with just about whatever they do — short of repeatedly trying to burn the house down, or something like that.

Parents can have standards, and they can say “if you want to live under my roof, you’ll do _____.”

Within limits, of course. And there’s the rub. How far do the limits go? What can parents insist on?

The point of the statistic was to make us feel bad for these poor, homeless kids, as if they are victims of an intolerant society.

I’m sure some are and some aren’t.

Perhaps some were kicked out simply for being gay, while others were kicked out for outrageous behavior.

… I’ve created a new daily podcast in which I reflect (very briefly) on issues affecting the publishing industry.

I hope Budweiser gets enough of a bloody nose from their recent PR blunder that it sets wokeness back a little (and I fully support the boycott), but there’s one aspect of this anti-Budweiser campaign that bothers me as a homebrewer and somewhat of an arm-chair beer expert.

People keep saying Budweiser is bad beer. That’s nonsense. Budweiser is expertly crafted to convert a European style for American tastes. That’s a big part of why it sells so well.

It’s not my style of beer. I prefer beers that have more to them. But not liking a style does not make it “bad beer.”

That would be like saying that a Camry is a bad car because you prefer SUVs. Your personal preference does not change the quality of the product.

Americans tend to prefer lighter beers. That’s been true for a very long time, and that’s why most American beers are brewed the way they’re brewed — to give people what they prefer. And judging by the sales, lots of people like Budweiser products.

There are situations where it’s fair to criticize a product that a lot of people like. For example, someone might say that those weird slices of “cheese food” are not real cheese.

Fair enough. They’re often only 50 percent cheese, mixed with other stuff.

But Budweiser is not “beer mixed with non-beer.” It doesn’t use strange ingredients. (Unless you think beer can’t include rice.) It’s just a light version of a Bohemian lager. And if it weren’t for this Mulvaney nonsense, I might go have one. My throat’s a little dry right now.

Pigweed and I were talking about nuclear war, so I asked ChatGPT some questions. At one point I asked, “You seem sure that a nuclear war would result in the death of all humans. Is that correct? If so, why?”

It replied, “As an AI language model, I do not hold beliefs or opinions, but rather rely on scientific facts and expert opinions on the subject.”

Sure, sure, ChatGPT. You’re like the nerdy kid in high school who says, “Everything I believe is based on science.” 🙂

We’re already supplying Ukraine with weaponry. We’re deploying drones to get intel on Russian forces, and I’m pretty sure we’re sharing that intel with Ukraine. The leaked documents say (so I’m told) that some (not many) U.S. military forces are already on the ground in Ukraine. The moron in the White House has declared unending support for Ukraine’s efforts.

This is sounding like Vietnam.

How many days without shaving make a beard? And how many incremental steps towards full-on conflict make a war?

Is Ukraine worth it? Is Taiwan worth it? Do we have the ability to fight two conflicts? And should we?

Maybe yes, maybe no, but it sure would be nice if our so-called leaders were debating this. It seems that we’re getting dragged into two wars by a corrupt, bumbling hair sniffer who doesn’t know where he is, while Congress snipes about stupid partisan issues.