Author: Crowhill Report

The shape of some Congressional districts seems ridiculous, and people have been talking for a long time about how to solve this.

What if we took geography out of the equation?

Rather than voting for a Congressman who will represent the people who live in a certain area, why not pick Congressmen who will represent a political position?

Here’s how it would work. Anyone can write a party platform. If they get more than some threshold number of people to sign on, they get on the ballot. People then vote for a party — i.e., for an idea.

The party would disclose the people they would appoint to office if they win. For example, if you were some small party, you might only have a chance of getting five people in office, but you might only get one. So you’d list the people you would appoint, in order.

The assumption would be that policy is more important than geography, although people could start parties that represent geographical concerns. One side benefit of this concept is that it would severely curtail the power of the two-party system.

This would not a parliamentary system, because the people would still vote for Senators and for the President. (Although I would also like to go back to having states appoint Senators, but that’s a different issue.)

It’s a rough idea, and would need some work, but what do you think of the general concept?

This is an interesting video about Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity. He argues that stupid people are more dangerous than evil people, because you can’t reason with stupid people.

He’s using “stupid” more along the lines of indoctrinated (I wonder if there’s a translation issue), and the whole argument reminds me of the saying “you have to be educated to be this stupid.” (“Educated” in this case meaning a false education that indoctrinates.)

Last week I attended an in-person conference in New York City. Almost none of the attendees wore masks, but all the help did — the food service people, etc.

Nancy Pelosi has once again been seen in a crowd not wearing a mask. (See Hobnobbing with the rich and famous, maskless, is the new face of the Democratic Party.)

“Why is Nancy Pelosi allowed to attend a lavish billionaire’s wedding in California without a mask while our school children are forced to mask up? Is it only the servant class who is forced to wear masks?” asked one tweet.

Obama famously partied with friends for his 60th birthday, and nobody wore a mask.

Rules are for the little people, of course, but I’m starting to wonder if masks are taking on a strange dual role as both virtue signal and class marker.

Kamala Harris panned for using ‘French accent’ to French scientists while touring Parisian lab

I often said that we should judge Trump on his policies and what he actually does, not on his personality or what he says. I want to apply the same standard to Harris.

Her personality is awful, but her policies are worse.

Back in October of 2020, I listed my top concerns. They were …

• Woke Culture
• Big Tech
• Riots, BLM and the move to delegitimize the U.S.
• The Economy
• Coronovirus
• Health Care
• China
• War

I would put up with Harris’ cackle, her tendency to be a goof, and her weird sense of what’s appropriate, if she was on the right side of the issues I care about. She’s not.

I heard about this today. Decent is a men’s magazine curated by women.

It’s probably safe to say that the size of the “men who want to be told what to do by women” market is a lot smaller than the “women who want to laugh at the silly things men do” market. If the owners are smart, they already know this, and they’re marketing this magazine to women. If they think they’re going to sell this to men, I think they’re going to have a tough time.

Also, this is a perfect opportunity to try your “shoe on the other foot” thinking.

What would people think if this same magazine was for women, curated by men?