The Crowhill Journal

P&C drink and review a hazy IPA from Three Stars Brewing called “No More Handshakes,” then discuss the current state of the lockdown.

The boys contrast the stated purpose of the lockdown vs. what people seemed to believe, and that contrast seems to be causing a lot of the current confusion.

Early on, there were a lot of things we didn’t know about the virus, so there has been a lot of confusion about how to respond to it. That’s most obvious in the changing narrative about masks — although now it’s pretty clear.

With 20-20 hindsight, it seems obvious we could have taken reasonable precautions and avoided the lockdown.

But some people love the lockdown. Who and why? The boys discuss.

And why keep the schools closed? Who’s in favor of that, and why? What does the education establishment get out of this?

Finally, what are the social costs of the lockdown?

You can download the file by right clicking on this link

P&C do a very poor job in a blind taste test of four “best cheap beers” — National Bohemian, Rolling Rock, Budweiser and Tecate — then discuss four violent sports: Calcio fiorentino, mensur, dueling and football hooliganism.

The topic was inspired by the “Home Game” episode on Calcio fiorentino, which is a horribly violent version of football they play in Florence.

The next sport they review is mensur — academic / fraternity fencing societies, in which men would frequently come away with serious scars on their face. The point is to stoicly absorb the cut, and the scar is a sign of masculinity.

Crowhill then tells his one fencing story, in which he beat the Maryland State fencing champion.

The boys discuss dueling, which was sometimes no more than a matter of “satisfying honor,” but was often quite deadly — as in the Hamilton / Burr duel.

They end with hooliganism, which is more popular in Europe. Men descend on a sports game to fight.

You can download the file by right clicking on this link.

Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share

“Nearly two-thirds — 62% — of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.”

Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves. Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe. However, centrist liberals feel differently. A slim majority (52%) of liberals feel they have to self‐​censor, as do 64% of moderates, and 77% of conservatives.

While there is a partisan edge to this, both sides are intolerant.

“50% of Strong Liberals Support Firing Trump Donors; 36% of Strong Conservatives Support Firing Biden Donors”

This is insanity.

Recently I’ve been possessed with a new story idea. It’s currently at 59 pages, about 29,000 words. (A normal novel is about 75,000 words, for reference.)

It’s not final, but it’s at a good stopping point — in the sense that a good serial TV show might be at the end of an episode.

If you want to read it, contact me and I’ll send it to you. It’s fairly rough, but should be entertaining.

P&C review a Mexican lager, then discuss David Goodhart’s theory about anywheres and somewheres.

The anywheres are educated, footloose, urban and socially liberal. The somewheres are rooted in a specific place or community, are socially conservative and often less educated.

It’s an interesting way of looking at current issues like Brexit, Trumpism and populism generally.

In the U.S., we have our east and west coast elites who view “fly over country” as a basket of deplorables.

How does this fit with the idea of a republic, where the representatives are supposed to bring local values to the nation?

To download the file, right click on this link: Somewheres vs. anywheres