The Crowhill Journal

When I was a kid, I asked for a cast of a Neanderthal skull for my birthday. And I got it. My parents encouraged intellectual pursuits.

You might guess that I’ve always been interested in primitive man, and so does Google, because I get a lot of stories about it in my newsfeed.

When I see these articles, I often imagine how other people would react to them. E.g., my fundamentalist friends, my overly “scientific” friends, etc.

Leaving aside the 6-day creationist POV, I chiefly imagine these three views of early man.

1. They knew things that we’ve forgotten.

They understood ancient mysteries and were closer to nature. They didn’t need medicines and therapy. If only we could talk to a Druid, or to someone from Atlantis, we’d be so much better off.

2. They were little more than talking apes.

Who cares what they thought? They didn’t know the most basic realities of their surroundings. They were superstitious and ignorant, and while they may have known some crafts that we’ve forgotten, they really couldn’t teach us much.

3. They “knew” things that we’ve suppressed.

Our overly scientific, rationalist approach to the world has caused us to ignore and suppress things that ancient man accepted, even though he might not have understood exactly why. As a consequence, we’ve lost some of what it means to be human.

I tend to prefer views 2 and 3. Our ancestors were certainly ignorant and superstitious, but because they didn’t experience the distortion of post-Enlightenment epistemological worries, their cultures and beliefs can give us insights into human psychology.

Having said that, it still might be fun to talk to a Druid. Especially Merlin.

Innovation happens on a scale of weeks while legal wrangling happens on a scale of decades.

The court may finally come to the right conclusion, but hundreds of businesses may have closed down in the meanwhile.

In a Swift Decision, Judge Eviscerates Internet Archive’s Scanning and Lending Program

Although in this case, the slowness seems to be on the part of the copyright owners, who should have filed this suit long ago.

Let’s dispense with the obvious. If Trump committed a crime, he should be punished for it.

But “no one is above the law” doesn’t justify going after Trump harder than they would normally do with someone else. E.g., if a particular crime is usually not prosecuted, it should not be prosecuted in Trump’s case simply to make a point. Unless this is a crime that should be prosecuted more, and a high-status case will send a message.

I don’t think that’s the case here.

Also, if a crime is usually not prosecuted, they should either start prosecuting it or take it off the books. Having lots of crimes that are prosecutable at someone’s discretion is not a good thing.

I’m only discussing broad issues because I don’t know the specifics, and it wouldn’t matter if I did. The specifics don’t matter. This case is not a matter of equal justice, or any of the bumper-sticker slogans people use to describe it. It’s two things: a political battle, and a chance for someone to make a name for himself.

If we were to appeal to general principles, I would say you don’t arrest a former president unless you have a very strong case, and my understanding is that this is not a very strong case. But general principles really don’t matter here, and anyone who says differently is being naive.

My prediction is that he will not be arrested. I don’t think the left wants to turn Trump into even more of a martyr than Trump already encourages himself.

I keep hearing comments about two tiers of justice in the United States, but when I try to parse it out, I keep finding more than two.

There’s the justice for the ordinary folk vs. the elite. Then there’s the justice for the people favored by the incumbent administration vs. its enemies.

On top of that, some people would add different tiers based on race and sex.

The perception that justice depends on such factors is very bad for our culture.

Epoch Times has an article on the bank collapse that seems decently balanced to me. Not that I’m an expert at all.

Behind the Banking Crisis That Shook the Financial System

It basically says the banks have collapsed because of tightening by the Fed and/or because of reliance on cryptocurrency.

But this is what caught my eye in the story.

Former President Donald Trump — in an all-caps social media Truth Social post last weekend — compared the chaos to 1929, warning that banks are already beginning to fail because of President Joe Biden’s economic policies.

“Joe Biden will go down as the Herbert Hoover of the modern age. We will have a Great Depression far bigger and more powerful than that of 1929. As proof, the banks are already starting to collapse!!!”

I believe Trump genuinely wants the best for the country, but that desire comes after his desire to promote himself and destroy his opponents.

In this case, the risk of causing a crisis of confidence in the banking system is worth it if he can get in a dig on Joe Biden.

That’s disgusting, especially since there are so many other legit ways to go after Joe Biden without endangering public confidence.