Author: Crowhill Report

You may have heard that the Iran-backed Houthis have killed some U.S. servicemen. Or, as the idiot White House press secretary puts it, “folks who are military folks.”

My natural inclination is that when some country attacks the United States, we should punch them back so hard that everybody on the planet craps their pants. Proportional response is nonsense. Disproportional response is deterence.

However, a case can be made that this is precisely what the lunatics in Iran want. They believe (so I’ve heard) that some sort of “everybody against the Muslims” war will bring the second coming of whoever.

Deterence only works if the other person is sane.

In addition to all that …

• I’m sick of the U.S. getting pulled into these stupid wars,
• we’re not quite as powerful as we used to be,
• I don’t trust Biden or his generals to manage such a thing,
• I am suspicious of the people who are calling for a strong action against Iran, and
• thanks to Obama, Iran might have a nuclear weapon, or something nearly as bad.

So I’m not sure what to think about this, except that I would trust any random person drawn from the phone book to make this decision (after getting briefed, of course) more than I would trust the moron in the White House.

Rod Dreher has an amazing article called “We are normalizing Trump. Again.” I’d link to it but it’s on Substack.

I don’t like Trump. If you’re going to complain about Trump, I will probably agree with a lot of what you say. Not all, but a lot.

The disconnect is that you may think Trump is uniquely evil, and I think Biden and the Democrats have him beat by a country mile. Biden is a traitor and the Democrats are insane.

For me, we’re facing a choice between a shit sandwich and a bullet to the head. I don’t want the shit sandwich, but it’s better than the alternative.

Among the points Dreher makes about “normal” …

Remember the trans dude fondling his own breasts at the White House?

Remember the Biden official who got off on stealing women’s luggage?

Have you noticed the behavior of his pride and joy, Hunter?

Have you noticed that recruitment for the Armed Services has fallen off a cliff because of the cross-dressing, trans-affirming BS from this White House?

Have you seen the empty retail shelves, and the prices of ordinary goods?

Are you ready for the Biden black outs, when we get the downsteam effects of his fantasy energy policy?

Have you seen the U.S. border?

Have you noticed that Biden doesn’t know where he is or what he’s doing?

Are you concerned with the rise of Nazi, anti-semitic beliefs in academia and the public?

Trump is not my cup of tea, but Biden is a cup of cyanide.

This article is discouraging.

The eve of Apple and Tesla’s destruction in China: American CEOs rarely outwit Beijing

The basic point is that China took the long view, lured in American business with low prices, learned all their secrets, and have either already or are about to eat their lunch.

One interpretation is that they outsmarted American businessmen, but another interpretation is that the American businessmen weren’t fooled at all, but were happy to take the short-term win even if it meant long-term losses. After all, they weren’t going to be CEO forever, and the investors want returns now.

That is probably the most likely scenario. Tim Cook and Elon Musk knew it was a short-term play, but it worked. For a time.

But now I’m going to turn this question completely on its head.

China is facing a serious population crisis, and people who allegedly know such things say they’re headed for a hard landing fairly soon.

It’s possible (although, IMO, quite unlikely) that American CEOs saw the even longer game — that China was planning for a future that is never likely to happen because they’ve planted the seeds of their own demise.

China has long-term plans and America can’t see past the 2-year election cycle. Sometimes it seems that American businesses can hardly see past the next quarterly report. That seems to give China an edge. But does it really? Are these long-term plans realistic? A lot can change in a decade, and a lot of things can’t be foreseen.

There’s no question that a lot of these billionaire businessmen are geniuses. That doesn’t mean they’re always leading their companies — and, to some extent, the United States — in the right direction.

I would like to see more long-term planning on our side, in business and in government. But I’m really hoping that evil carries the seeds of its own demise, and that China’s long-term plans will amount to very little in the end.

On the other hand, it’s not like the United States is righteous.

A flexible work environment seems to be more conducive to female employment. Some would argue that almost everyone prefers it, but when it comes to whether or not it’s a deal breaker, women (as a group) are either less willing or less able to sacrifice time with their family for the sake of a job.

This is nothing new. Men have historically been more willing to work long hours, take more business trips, etc., than women. Women value other things more. (Again, I’m speaking in terms of groups not individuals.)

Therefore, the “back to the office” push (from some companies) and efforts to crack down on “flexible” work schedules is in tension with an effort to get (or keep) more women on the payroll.

Is this …

(1) The patriarchy trying to push women out of the office? or,

(2) Employers who genuinely believe the old, “in the office 9-5” (or so) model is better, and care about the increased productivity more than they care about women’s employment?

Let’s assume it’s #2.

Some people will take issue with the assumption that the old (in the office) model is better. They’ll say flexible work environments are more efficient.

This is one of those areas where you can find studies to justify your preference. I eye them all with suspicion because of how closely they’re tied to this socially charged issue.

In my mind it’s more interesting to look at the issue this way.

Some would argue that even if the “in the office for long hours” assumption is true, it’s socially damaging because it limits female participation in the workforce, and that’s more important than the productivity question.

You could make an analogy to child labor. Even if companies are more productive and efficient if they can hire children, it’s simply not something we want in our culture. IOW, the bottom line is not always the final arbiter of these questions.

And that’s where the problem lies.

Is the goal of getting more women to participate in the workforce (1) a goal everyone shares, and (2) worth the hit to productivity?

He’s not polished. He needs experience. But I liked a lot of what he had to say.

Unfortunately, it’s looking like a Biden – Trump rematch. What a catastrophe.

I don’t want Trump in the White House, but I would vote for a dead dog before I’d vote for Joe Biden. The man is a disaster.