Author: Crowhill Report

You may have seen this video in which a Gen Z worker complains about the unfairness of the current work environment.

Gen-Z will hopefully soon realize supporting and advocating for Biden was a bad idea.
pic.twitter.com/B8uaJPOUxw

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) January 10, 2024

I think many conservatives react to this with some version of “quit complaining, work harder, and stop spending your money on $1000 phones.”

I have a different reaction.

We’ve been devaluing labor for decades to (1) feed our appetite for cheap crap, and (2) increase corporate profits.

Neither of those things are bad. Being able to buy things for less makes citizens more wealthy, and corporate profits fund 401(k) accounts, create jobs, increase the GDP, etc.

But there is a cost, which is what this young lady is talking about. In order to have cheap things at Walmart, we can’t pay the Walmart workers very well. Or the people who work in the factories that make the stuff on the shelves.

I’m not inclined to accept simple answers to this situation. Yes, we want more efficient production of goods. But we also want people to be able to get a job, get married, earn a living, raise a family, etc. And I think we’re failing at that, and it’s only going to get worse as Biden welcomes 482 billion new people into the country.

We all know that the way you frame a question can influence the answer.

There are lots of different ways to do this, e.g., by making a question positive or negative, by emphasizing different aspects of the question, by making it complex or simple, by using charged / loaded language in the question, by the order in which things are presented, etc. And it’s not amateur hour. People study how to do this.

Knowing that pollsters can influence an answer, which is more likely with reference to political polls: (1) that pollsters are seeking an honest read on the situation, or (2) that pollsters are trying to get to a predetermined conclusion?

I think it would be a mistake to assume that it’s always 1 or always 2.

It’s well-established that political campaigns use “push polls” to influence public opinion, and it’s well established that media outlets have political agendas.

At the same time, …

• news organizations get some level of acclaim when their polls accurately reflect results, and
• some races (we are told) are particularly difficult to predict with polling.

Taken all together, I’m leaning toward the idea that early polls are more likely to be an attempt to influence the election (e.g., push a preferred candidate), while later polls are more likely to be relatively honest.

When I say “preferred candidate,” I don’t necessarily mean “a candidate the pollster likes.” I mean a candidate the pollster would rather have in the race, for whatever reason.

What do you think?

It’s an interesting story that raises a lot of questions.

From what I can tell, nobody’s quite sure how he made his money. That seems to imply that he got it illegally — e.g., by bribing people, or doing nefarious deeds — or that he was on some secret payroll. Eric Weinstein (who honestly strikes me as a bit of a nut) says he might have been an asset for an intelligence agency.

That makes some sense. It would tie together several different threads.

But there’s a lot that needs to be investigated.

It’s odd that his client list been suppressed for so long, and seemingly protected by very powerful people. Why?

There are some serious questions about the circumstances surrounding his death. Although I should note that the famous skeptic Michael Shermer dismisses a lot of those questions and believes Epstein committed suicide.

The Epstein story fits with the increasingly popular view that there’s a cabal of rich and powerful people who run things behind the scenes, live by their own set of rules, and protect one another.

It’s possible that’s all it is. Maybe Epstein is simply a convenient avatar to attach to that story.

I think there’s more to it, but I don’t know how much more.

Happy New Year everybody!

Captain Crowhill, Mrs. Crowhill and I watched Rebel Moon over the holidays. It’s okay, but it’s not great.

It’s very derivative, but that makes sense because it was written to be a Star Wars movie. It seems every Star Wars movie has to invoke the same concepts and scenes. E.g., here are some farmers eeking out an existence on a distant planet. Here we are in a new version of Mos Eisley, where there has to be a bar fight. And here’s the Han Solo character. Etc.

It’s a dark and gritty movie. Maybe this is my 60 year old eyes speaking, but I hate it when a movie is too dark.

The bad guys are over the top. No functional military could have the kinds of characters we see in this film.

They also get a little too realistic in the threat to the women in the opening scenes. It’s okay to imply rape (like with Jabba the Hut). We get it. You don’t have to be so gross about it.

The lead character is somewhat interesting, but the rest of them are pretty boring.

If you watch it knowing that it’s a failed Star Wars movie, you’ll get through it with a laugh or two.

When I was a kid, someone in my family had a book called “It’s the Law!” with examples of stupid laws from around the country.

Some of them were just silly, like some jurisdiction where it was against the law to whistle underwater, but some of them made you wonder — like this one. In some county it was against the law for a preacher to tell a joke from the pulpit.

Your initial reaction to that is probably that it was some Puritan thing. You know, “a Puritan is someone who is constantly afraid that somebody somewhere is having a good time.” (Which is a historically inaccurate jibe against Puritians, but … nevermind.)

That law came the mind the other day when I saw some story about John Oliver.

I think John Oliver is a snarky jerk who’s wrong about most things. I haven’t heard him often, but when I have, he’s always struck me as the guy who is talented at misrepresenting an issue in an amusing way. It’s a little frightening to think that some people get their perspective on “the news” from people like Oliver.

That made me think of the law about preachers.

After listing to somebody like Oliver, it’s easy to imagine someone thinking that the world would be a better place if serious subjects weren’t the subject of comedy.