The Crowhill Journal

This debate was less orderly and reflected badly on most of the candidates. If they’re going to behave like this, it would be better to put the candidates in sound-proof booths and only turn on their microphones when they’re allowed to speak.

The questions didn’t impress me, and Ilia Calderón didn’t contribute anything of value.

Burgum started off well with a clear libertarian message, and had some good things to say, but at times he went off on confusing rants. He gets points for being consistent, but he has no chance.

Vivek has done a rather startling about-face on his opponents. Last time they were all “bought and paid for.” This time they were all good people. He did not do well, although I liked his comment about ending birthright citizenship.

Tim Scott was an asshole (trying to overcome his “nice guy” image?), but he did stand out a bit with his comments about the effect of the great society on black families.

Christie sounded much better tonight. I almost liked him.

Pence did a lousy job. He seemed confused at times. Still slow and boring.

Haley was a phrenetic asshole, seemed wonky, and not at all inspiring, although I did like her “bring it” reply to Scott (or was it Ramaswamy?).

Desantis was clearly the best, but didn’t distinguish himself enough to make any difference.

The best chance any of them have of becoming the nominee is for something to prevent Trump from continuing — i.e., either his legal troubles get to be too much, or his health declines, or something like that.

For a while I was tempted to believe that the insanity on social media was not that big a deal. Its disgusting attributes were a consequence of the medium. Or it only represented a small group of narcissists and troublemakers. It did not represent society as a whole.

No, it doesn’t represent society, but it does seem to lead it. They’re not called “influencers” for nothing.

It seems we have created a medium that attracts and promotes the worst elements of human society, which then infiltrates and poisons the rest of society.

What is the proper response to such a thing?

Generally speaking, I don’t want a government with the power to prevent or curtail something like social media. But no other institution (education, church, media, the family) has the will, ability, or desire to stop it.

In an earlier time, preachers would rail against it and it would be far less socially consequential.

This is an illustration of John Adams’s statement that our government is inadequate for any but a good and religious people.

So we seem to be faced with a choice of (1) giving our government the power to rule an irreligious people, or (2) hoping, praying, and working for revival.

I’ve been thinking about some of the Catholic Marian doctrines, and many of them revolve around Old Testament typology — e.g., Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary as the Daughter of Zion, Mary as the New Eve.

On that last point, a Catholic would say that just as Eve played a crucial role in the Fall of man, Mary plays a crucial role in man’s redemption.

But many Protestants take a very Adam-centric view of the Fall. E.g., it wasn’t until after Adam ate the fruit that the eyes of both of them were opened.

You could interpret the story a few ways. You could say they both sinned, then they both received the consequences. It was the fall of man and woman. Or you could say that Eve sinned, but that wasn’t dispositive — it was only Adam’s sin that caused the Fall because he was the federal head of the human race.

Christ, being the new Adam, became the new federal head of the human race and redeemed mankind, undoing the curse of Adam.

Such an “Adam-centric” view of the Fall lessens the significance of Eve, and therefore undermines the significance of Mary as the New Eve.

I’m not concerned with whether all the details are true. Rather I’m wondering if such a view of the Fall would have a subtle effect on people’s view of Mary. E.g., “Okay, even if Mary is the New Eve in some weird way, what difference does it make, because Eve’s role wasn’t that important.”

Another way to look at it might be to ask “was it necessary for someone to undo the role of Eve?”

You could say that such a view would be far more patriarchal than the Catholic view. (Realize that I don’t mean that as a criticism because I don’t view “patriarchal” as a bad thing, the way some people today would. I’m just making the observation.)

Anyway, I’m curious what you think of the overall theory.

1. Ukraine cannot beat Russia no matter how many arms we send them.

2. If the U.S. is committed to Ukraine, we will get drawn further and further into the conflict.

3. U.S. troops will be directly involved in fighting Russia (if they aren’t already).

That sounds like the definition of WW3, and it will only escalate.

How do we get out of this?

People say, “you can’t let a bully get his way.” “We can’t let Putin keep what he stole.”

Maybe in some fantasy, Barbie world, but in real world everything comes down to this: at what cost?

It would be better to have peace — even if that means that Russia gets all the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine — than to keep going on the path we’re going, which will lead to a nuclear war.

I would like to pin this insanity on the idiot in the White House, but he’s just one shuffling, bumbling part of the coalition of morons who are leading us down this path. And many of them are Republicans and so-called “conservatives.”

Oh, but you said something mean about fat people on welfare.