The Crowhill Journal

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.

I don’t follow news about Frank the Hippie Pope, but this one caught my eye today. It reminded me of a comment from an orthodox Catholic friend who said the pope is lost.

Pope Francis formally approved same-sex blessings Monday, clearing the way for Catholic priests to bless people without subjecting them to “an exhaustive moral analysis,” the latest in a string of radical changes to the church under Francis’ tenure. pic.twitter.com/RRPW3RCxuW

— Forbes (@Forbes) December 18, 2023

Note: I’m taking it for granted that Santos was a creep who didn’t deserve to be in Congress.

When it came to ejecting Santos, there were some people who were saying that at least Republicans have some principles — that Democrats always stick up for their own, no matter what they say or do. That’s not completely true, but it seems to be generally true. Democrats toe the party line a lot better than Republicans.

But “principles” can get complicated.

On the one hand, having “principles” means you don’t allow a creep like Santos to stay in office. On the other hand, having “principles” means that you don’t allow evil people to take control.

As an extreme example, imagine one party had a one seat advantage over a Nazi party. Kicking out some of your guys out of “principle” might mean handing over control of the Congress to the Nazis. Is that really the “principled” thing to do?

It’s been said — and I think this has been generally true until very recently — that Democrats view Republicans as evil, while Republicans view Democrats as misguided. So to Democrats, handing over power to the Republicans is like handing over power to the Nazis, while to the Republicans, handing over power to the Democrats is more like an unfortunate setback.

This would help to explain why Democrats protect their own — even their lunatics — while Republicans are more likely to abandon them.

I was recently in Abu Dhabi and learned that the population of the United Arab Emirates is about 90 percent foreign born. And it’s peaceful. Part of that has to do with surveillance, but I think there’s more to it.

Ireland had riots this past weekend over immigration concerns. But immigrants only make up about 20 percent of the Irish population.

Why is 90 percent okay in the UAE and 20 percent a problem in Ireland?

I’m not trying to pick on Ireland. We see the same problem in many countries. It’s just that Ireland is in the news right now.

I don’t know all the details, but it seems to me that it has to do with whether the leadership in the country believes in their national culture. The UAE has an unapologetic Muslim culture. They’re tolerant of other cultures, but they make no excuses for being Muslim.

Western countries, by contrast, don’t seem to know what they are, or what they stand for.

What does it mean to be an American, or an Irishman? We don’t seem to know.

The West seems to be suffering from an identity crisis, and I don’t think they’ll be able to come to terms with immigration issues until they decide what they are, and why, and what they want to be.