Author: Pigweed and Crowhill

P&C drink and review Troeg’s Hop Horizon IPA, then discuss the need for strong men.

One side of the culture war wants to tell boys they’re toxic, potential rapists, and the best they can do is sit quietly and not get in the girls’ way, because the future is female. And if you won’t sit quietly, we’ll give you drugs to make sure you do.

On the other side of the culture war, Sen. Josh Hawley recently wrote a book to encourage boys to grow in the manly virtues.

From a Roman perspective, these are the classical virtues.

1. Virtus (Manliness) encompasses bravery, courage, and strength. A Roman man was expected to display valor on the battlefield and face adversity with resilience.

2. Pietas (Piety) referred to a sense of duty, devotion, and loyalty. A Roman man was expected to fulfill his obligations to the gods, his family, and the state.

3. Fides (Good Faith) was the virtue of trustworthiness, reliability, and honesty. A Roman man was expected to keep his promises, be true to his word, and honor his commitments.

4. Gravitas (Dignity) denoted a sense of seriousness, self-control, and responsibility. A Roman man was expected to conduct himself with dignity, maintain composure in challenging situations, and exercise self-discipline.

5. Industria (Industriousness) represented diligence, hard work, and perseverance. A Roman man was expected to be productive, industrious, and committed to achieving his goals.

6. Clementia (Mercy) referred to the virtue of mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. A Roman man was encouraged to show leniency and kindness, particularly in positions of power and authority.335

7. Honestas (Respectability) encompassed moral integrity, honor, and a respectable reputation. A Roman man was expected to lead a virtuous life, maintain his family’s honor, and contribute positively to society.

The cardinal virtues, according to Roman Catholicism are prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.

What’s wrong with these things?

The boys also review a horrible article by Silva Neves from Psychology Today.

The boys drink and review Old Blarney Barley Wine, then discuss pride month.

During pride month, everyone on the planet is invited — or rather, compelled — to celebrate the sexual proclivities of a small minority.

“It’s a month that vomits rainbows, glitter, and dildos,” Pigweed says.

Sexuality is usually considered a private thing. It seems odd for it to be a gaudy parade. Something doesn’t fit here.

At first, the LGB movement was about allowing homosexuals to share health insurance and hospital visitation rights. Now, if you don’t allow gay porn in public schools and celebrate when a trans person does a pole dance at the library in front of children, you’re a bigot.

We have lost the distinction between tolerating and celebrating. Tolerating wasn’t enough. Now we have to have parades, because “silence is violence.”

Americans need to decide that they will no longer participate in the lies.

The boys drink and review Proper ESB, then discuss a speech against wokeness by a famous and well-known personality.

The mystery speaker said things like this.

“The fight for equality and against discrimination [has turned] into an aggressive dogmatism on the brink of absurdity, when great authors of the past such as Shakespeare are no longer taught in schools and universities because they … did not understand the importance of gender or race.

“In Hollywood [the rules are] tighter and stricter than what the Department of Propaganda of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee did…

“[Americans] push the parents aside and [let children make] decisions that can destroy their lives. [This is a] crime against humanity, and all of that under the banner of progress…

“Some believe that aggressive[ly] blotting out [] the traditional interpretation of such basic values as mother, father, family, and the distinction between sexes are a milestone… a renewal of society…

“[This is] nothing new. [It happened in Russia] after the 1917 revolution …

“[T]hey also declared that they would … change the traditional lifestyle, the political, the economic lifestyle, as well as the very notion of morality, the basic principles for a healthy society.

Who is this wise man?

P&C drink and review That Shiz Slaps by Aslin Beer Company, then discuss the amazing life and career of Sir Isaac Newton.

After barely surviving childbirth, and being abandoned by his mother when he was three, Newton avoided his parent’s advice to become a farmer and went on to be a student at Trinity College. He was a quiet and introverted student who spent all his time in his studies and work.

Newton went home to avoid the plague. That’s when the famous story of the apple occurred.

The prevailing thought of the day was that heavenly motions and earthly motions were governed by different rules. Newton realized that exactly the same force that caused the apple to fall caused the moon to stay in orbit around the Earth.

To work on his theories he invented Calculus!

But Newton was not only a genius at math and physics. He was also a theologian, an alchemist, and made great strides in the field of optics.

In order to maintain his position in English society, he had to hide his heretical theological views, and it’s only recently that people are diving into his strange alchemical theories.

Toward the end of his life he supervised the Royal Mint, and was knighted by Queen Anne.

The boys drink and review a disappointing homebrew, then discuss the 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state.

The well-known phrase actually does not come from the constitution, but from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

The founder’s main concern was to prevent the federal government from imposing a religion on the individual states, which, at the time, often had their own established religions.

Today we apply the first amendment to both federal and state governments, but that wasn’t true for the first several decades of the Republic.

The constitution has two relevant clauses: the establishment clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, and the free exercise clause, which prohibits Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The country has been trying to find the proper between these two ideals. The boys discuss.

P&C drink and review Hazecraft IPA from Great Lakes Brewing Company, then discuss situations where Pigweed pointed out the craziness of a position only to find that the left doubled down on craziness.

Body identity disorder is a weird condition where a person believes a limb isn’t really his and doesn’t belong. He wants a doctor to cut it off. But of course no reputable doctor would do such a thing.

How is this different from trans surgery?

We’re seeing a movement that increasingly wants to accommodate delusions.

Pigweed also pointed out that if a minor can choose to be a different sex, why can’t they choose to have sex with whom they want. Including an adult.

You’re expected to be so repulsed by the idea that you jump back in fear from allowing minors to choose their sex. But the crazy left is going the other direction. They’re starting to push the idea of allowing sex between adults and minors.

The boys drink a cocktail and discuss the significance of the Durham Report about Crossfire Hurricane — aka, the persecution of Donald Trump

The Federalist put it this way.

“Imagine someone told you that in the run-up to a U.S. presidential election, the FBI tried to undermine a candidate at the behest of the opposing campaign by cooking up a false narrative of collusion with Moscow.

“And let’s say this conspiracy implicated not just the FBI but also the White House, Justice Department, and CIA — and that nearly the entire corporate press went along with it, gleefully spreading the false narrative that this candidate was a Russian agent, running story after story of fabricated nonsense in a coordinated effort to ensure the opposing candidate won.”

The first conclusion from the report is that Trump is vindicated

• It was a witch hunt (no reality – based on false information)
• It was politically motivated
• They were spying on his campaign
• It was an attempt to stop him from being elected and to undermine his presidency
• There was a deep-state conspiracy
• The FBI, DOJ, and Obama administrations were colluding, using Clinton campaign ideas
• The media was “fake news”

The media reaction was quite telling. Since they were in on the whole conspiracy, they’re not trying to cover it up. “Nothing new here.” They have no shame.

“The establishment media were so fully gulled and in the tank for the Russian collusion story for so long that they now just can’t acknowledge Durham’s report without also having to eat crow at the same time, something they clearly aren’t willing to do,” according to journalism professor Jeffrey McCall

The Durham report claims

• Clinton campaign oppo research came up with BS allegations against Trump
• FBI knew it was bogus, but acted on it as if it was serious.
• Top FBI officials (documented Trump haters) approved a full-scale investigation.
• FBI management was “pushing it so hard there was no stopping the train.” “Grease the skids.” Make it happen.
• The Obama White House knew all these details and did not try to stop it.
• The FBI should never have launched its investigation. It never had any evidence that would authorize such an investigation.
• The FBI used completely different standards with Trump and Clinton.

Top officials at the White House and the FBI knew that the Clinton campaign was falsely claiming Russia collusion, they knew they had no evidentiary basis for this, they nevertheless launched a full-scale investigation.

But …
There were no convictions

Fallout

• “All actions are permissible” if you’re trying to stop Hitler, the devil, Trump
• Shouldn’t a hero try to fix the election?

Given that we know all this …

• Why should we trust the FBI on political questions?
• (Also remember the “51 intelligence agencies” BS on the Biden laptop.)
• If they can pull this off, the idea that the left stole the election seems more plausible

After a quick skit by the Ben Franklin players, Pigweed and Crowhill drink and review a French Toast stout, then discuss the production of EV batteries.

The story goes that the planet is heating because of carbon emissions, so we have to move to electric vehicles.

Energy drives prosperity and human flourishing. Right now, most energy is produced by fossil fuels, and agricultural relies on fertilizer, which requires fossil fuels.

But there’s a big drive to move all our vehicles to electric.

The boys discuss the details about the production and disposal of electric batteries. They’re not nearly as environmentally friendly as many people believe.

The boys drink and review a robust porter from Bell’s, then evaluate western values.

Western values developed from three major sources.

• Classical antiquity
• The Judeo-Christian tradition
• Germanic customs

Roughly speaking, “western values” include the following:

• Democracy
• Individualism
• Human rights
• Free speech
• Free markets
• The rule of law
• Secularism
• Rationalism
• Liberalism
• Capitalism

When people object to western values, which of these do they want to discard?

“Western values” are truths, not merely preferences. We’re not making this stuff up, we’re progressively discovering things about the right ordering of society.

With special guest Longinus, P&C drink and review Carlsberg, then discuss Candide as part of their “shortcut to the classics” series.

The boys give a short review of his life. Voltaire was a pillar of the Enlightenment.

In Candide, Voltaire employs biting sarcasm against the idea that this is “the best of all possible worlds.” Candide suffers through “one damned thing after another,” but continues to have the sunny outlook of his teacher, Pangloss. Everything must be for the best.

Eventually, Candide meets Martin, another philosopher with a very different view, which allows Voltaire to have some debates between these two life outlooks.

Leibnitz believed that this is the best possible world because if God is good, he must have picked the best of all possible worlds.

Voltaire thought this was ridiculous, and wrote Candide as a response.

With special guest Longinus, P&C drink and review a Belgian saison, then discuss a few essays by Michel Foucault, who many people say was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century.

Longinus gives a brief biography, then the boys work through two essays: “What is Enlightenment” and “Truth and Power.”

Foucault is considered a post-modernist. The boys try to unpack modernism and post-modernism to put Foucault in context.

His writings are difficult to read. Sometimes it sounds like complete nonsense. But a few things do come out fairly clearly. Most importantly, he believes that all of the things we think of as rational, self-evident truths, are actually dependent on circumstances and the changing fads and customs of a particular time. Foucault would reject the idea of objective truth.

In many ways, Foucault contributed to the craziness we see all around us today, with “my truth,” and the idea that everyone gets to define their own reality.

The boys drink and review Pigweed’s homemade brown ale, then discuss nuclear war.

They distinguish fission and fusion reactions, and how that relates to nuclear bombs and their development.

After Word War 2 there was a mad rush to develop larger and larger stockpiles.

Today, nine countries are confirmed as having nuclear weapons. But for some strange reason we seem less afraid of nuclear war now than we were during the Cold War.

The peace seems to have been maintained by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. But how does that apply in the modern world?

Where is the biggest risk of nuclear war today? Russia vs. U.S.? China vs. U.S.? China vs. India? India vs. Pakistan?

And what about Iran?

If there is a nuclear war, will we all die? Will it end all of humanity?

If there is a remnant, could they rebuild? What about nuclear winter?

The boys give their take on the Tucker Carlson fiasco in this “nooze and booze” episode, in which they try Pigweed’s homemade apple pie moonshine.

In a matter of a week, there were several big stories in the news world. Fox News parted company with Dan Bongino, Fox News settled with Dominion Voting for an ungodly sum, Don Lemon was fired from CNN, and Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News.

The boys discuss the basics of the Dominion Voting lawsuit but spend most of their time on theories about the Tucker Carlson issue.

Pigweed and Crowhill favor the theory that Rupert Murdoch didn’t like Tucker’s speech to the Heritage Foundation in which he painted modern political disputes as a fight between good and evil, and recommended that Americans pray for their country. Added to that, Murdoch may have believed Tucker wasn’t a team player and was getting too big for his britches.

The boys speculate on what Carlson might do next, and how it might affect the 2024 election.

P&C also spend a couple of minutes on the Bud Light fiasco, and then Pigweed springs a hard question on Crowhill.

The boys drink and review RAR’s Groove City Hefeweizen, then review short selling, the Gamestop story, Sam Bankman-Fried, and FTX.

After watching the Netflix “Eat the Rich” series, the boys remembered their interest in the Gamestop story, so they consulted their financially intelligent friends, Hansel and Gretel, to get up to speed on what happened and why.

It’s a fascinating story where “retail investors” who frequented the “Wallstreetbets” Reddit group stuck it to the institutional investors and caught them in a short squeeze.

The retail investors sent the stock rocketing up, which was putting the institutional investors in a bind, then Robinhood — the platform most of the retail investors used — shut down all purchases of Gamestop.

The story makes you believe the system is rigged for the benefit of the big, instutional investors.

Along the same lines, the boys discuss the Sam Bankman-Fried story, and how he fooled the world with his phony empire built on pretend money.

Pigweed and Crowhill drink and review an IPA from Three Floyds, then discuss whether the United States should pay reparations for the evils of slavery.

P&C agree that the concept of reparations is sound. When you harm someone, you should try to repair the wrong that’s been done.

They review some of the arguments for reparations, and have sympathy for many of them.

The idea is not simply that the ancestors of slave owners should pay the ancestors of slaves, but that the entire system was complicit in slavery, so the entire system should pay.

But who should be paid, and how much? What’s the limiting principle? Should we also pay Native Americans, or the Chinese, who were abused in the creation of the railroads?

Can a group be held responsible for the actions of a group at some time in the past?

It’s almost impossible to parse it all out and unscramble the mess. Isn’t there a statute of limitations?