Beer and Conversation with Pigweed and Crowhill

P&C drink and review Cru Cab IPA from Big Truck brewery, then invite special guest Longinus to help them discuss a novella by Marquez. This is part of P&C's on-going "shortcut to the classics" series.

The book is written by an old man about an old man who is reflecting on his life.

On his 90th birthday, the unnamed protagonist -- who is a confirmed bachelor and frequent patron of brothels -- wanted to give himself a night of wild love with an adolescent virgin. The book is about his reminiscenses, but mostly about his relationship with this one girl.

The protagonist has lived 90 years with no love in his life, but now, at the end, he falls madly in love with a very young girl, with whom he doesn't have sex.

The book presents some deep reflections on love, sex, passion, and jealousy. In one sense, it's a very raunchy and disturbing book, with difficult themes. In another sense, it's an interesting commentary on love.

The boys drink and review Crimson Crue red ale from Dogfish Head brewery, then discuss apocalyptic religions -- specifically the JWs and the SDAs.

The two groups have points in common and some important distinctions.

Both groups are rooted in the Millerite movement and some disappointing predictions about the end of the world. They both

* believe in one God,

* are somewhat obsessed with the Book of Revelation,

* have some odd views about what happens to the soul at death,

* believe the Bible is inspired and infallible, and

* are (or can be) a touch cultic.

The distinctions are more important. The JWs are not Christians, in the sense that they do not believe in the Trinity. SDAs do. 7th Day Adventists also have a better understanding of salvation, and several other things.

SDAs have some interesting distinctions -- like their insistence on a Saturday Sabbath, and their reliance on the prophecies of Ellen G. White -- but they are Christians.

The boys drink and review Super Thick Pastry Stout from Old Mother Brewing in Frederick, Maryland, then discuss the Big 5 personality characteristics.

There are a lot of personality tests out there, like Myers Briggs and the Enneagram. Those aren't as solidly based in science as the Big Five.

You can remember the Big Five with with of two acrostics, OCEAN or CANOE. They are ...

The Big Five personality traits, also known as the Five Factor Model (FFM), are a widely accepted framework for understanding human personality. They represent broad dimensions of individual differences in personality. Here's a brief explanation of each:

Openness to Experience features characteristics such as imagination, insight, and a broad range of interests. Individuals high in openness are often curious about the world and other people, eager to learn new things, and open to new experiences, including unconventional ideas or novel solutions. They tend to be creative and appreciative of art and beauty.

Conscientiousness involves high levels of thoughtfulness, good impulse control, and goal-directed behaviors. Highly conscientious individuals are organized, reliable, and diligent. They plan ahead, work systematically, and carry out tasks with attention to detail. This trait is often linked with academic and career success.

Extroversion is characterized by excitability, sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness, and high amounts of emotional expressiveness. Extroverts derive energy from social interaction, are often enthusiastic and action-oriented, enjoy being around people, and are often perceived as full of life and energy.

Agreeableness includes attributes such as trust, altruism, kindness, affection, and other prosocial behaviors. Individuals who score high in agreeableness tend to be cooperative, compassionate, and friendly. They are more inclined to help others and value getting along with people.

Neuroticism is associated with emotional instability, anxiety, moodiness, irritability, and sadness. Individuals high in neuroticism may experience more frequent and severe negative emotions than their peers. They tend to respond worse to stressors, are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and can struggle to bounce back from challenging events.

After the boys conclude their discussion of the Big Five, Pigweed relates a story from Mrs. Pigweed, who went to pronoun class. P&C review some of the material from the class and conclude it's a huge smoking pile of nonsense.

At the end of the show, Crowhill takes a shot at reading "the worst sentence ever written" by Judith Butler.

The boys drink and review Planetary hazy IPA from the Ministry of Brewing, then discuss the decline of religion in the west.

The boys review some of the stats on the decline in church attendance, the rise of the "nones," and how religion has less and less influence on western civilization.

But there are some important elements of society that are heavily and positively influenced by religion.

Many science-minded people think it's good that religion is in decline. The so-called "new atheists" say we can craft a new morality based on reason. Is that really working?

This aligns with the the ideas of the enlightenment -- that reason could replace religion. But does that work?

Richard Dawkins recently revealed that he was a "cultural Christian." Is that all we have?

The P&C show has frequently discussed an evolutionary psychology explanation for religion. Societies with religion edged out those without.

There's a quote attributed to Chesterton that says "when men cease to believe in God, they don't believe nothing, they believe anything."

There is a God-shaped hole in our hearts. If that hole isn't filled with God, it will be filled with something else, like environmentalism, wokeness/activism, identity/narcissism/transgenderism.

Neitzche feared that when religion died, it would be replaced with hyper-nationalism and other ills. "I didn't see this coming....but, I'm not surprised."

There are lots of indications that the concept of God underwrites many of the social norms that we rely on.

There's also the issue of archetypes and evolutionary psychology.

One argument for the existence of God is that without God everything goes to crap. Is that where we are? Is God necessary, whether he exists or not?

The boys drink and review Tmave Pivo, a Czech Dark Lager by Ten Eyck brewing.

54% of people in America think the government has too much power. Does the federal government do too much? Is it too big?

Government debt has been a problem for a while, but recently it has spiked to almost unbelievable levels. Is this a good thing? How do we stop it?

What is the federal government supposed to do, and how does that match with what the federal government actually does? There are some things the government does -- and spends money on -- that have no justification in the constitution.

The Ben Franklin players finish the show with a dramatic reading.

The boys drink and review Giant Flaming Zombie Polar Bear Double IPA by Atlas Brewing, then discuss Frank Herbert's Dune and J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

Which one is better? Where are they similar, and where are they different?

Dune is a great work of science fiction and the Lord of the Rings is a great work of fantasy. They have a lot of things in common, including a medieval fee, knights, castles, great houses, wizard-like characters, and immense, involved world building.

There are strong differences as well. Dune looks to the future while the LOTR looks to the past, and has more of a nostalgic feel. Dune is technological, but in the LOTR, it's usually the bad guys who use technology.

The LOTR has a much clearer moral universe, with more differentiation between the good guys and the bad guys. It's not exactly clear who the good guys are in Dune.

Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and the LOTR is infused with a religious sensibility, even though there is not actual religion in the book. Herbert was not a believer and presents religion as a tool to be manipulated for political ends.

The LOTR is very mythological, and sometimes even sacramental, while Dune is speculative and includes psychedelics.

The P&C Man of the Week this time is James Carville. (Starting about 34:00.)

The boys drink and review Big Red Norm Red Ale from Denizen's Brewing, then discuss speed dating.

Imagine that a friend drags you into speed dating. What would you do?

First, you have to decide what your intentions are. But given that, what questions can you ask to find out if the woman is nuts?

What are the deal-breaker questions? Tattoos? Drinking? (Not drinking?) Weed?

The questions you ask in speed dating might focus on sussing out a few issues, such as ...

* How boring they are

* Their interests

* Personality

* Neuroticism

* Intelligence

There's not much time. How would you prioritize your questions?

Man of the week: All the Planet Fitness members who are leaving.

The boys drink and review Delicious IPA from Stone's Brewing, then try to work through the confusing world of gender and the horrible legacy of gender theory.

Isn't "gender" about language? How did it come to describe people's sexuality?

Enter John Money, the disgusting pervert who is the father of gender theory. He promoted the idea that gender is not connected with sex, and that gender is malleable. He coined the terms gender role and sexual orientation.

Money was behind the tragedy of David Reimer, who after a horrible accident during a circumcision lost his entire penis. Money convinced the parents to raise the boy as a girl.

It was a catastrophe, but it became the proof -- among sexologists and perverts -- that sex was just a social construct, and that if you raise a boy as a girl, he'll be a girl.

It didn't work out that way and it ruined poor David's life. He never took to his female "identity," and eventually committed suicide.

We're coming to a point of reckoning. Children who had this butchery done to them are growing up, and they're starting to sue the monsters who did this to them.

It won't be long before we look back on this "gender theory" nonsense the way we look back on the Satanic panic. But how many children will have to be butchered before we get there?

The boys drink and review Crowhill's homebrewed Viking Stout, then catch up on recent news with electric vehicles.

There has been concern about fires and EVs. They burn hot, and it's hard to put them out. With some experience behind us now, while there are still concerns, it's not as bad as feared.

EVs are still mostly a luxury item. They're great as a second car, but they can't completely replace gasoline vehicles. They don't work well in the cold. They take a long time to charge. There aren't enough charging stations. They don't have enough range. It would be a disaster if people tried to evacuate Florida in EVs.

Home charging is not an option for people who live in apartments, or otherwise don't have access to home charging options.

Government goals for EV production and adoption have been way too optimistic. After a solid flood of early adopters, demand has softened considerably.

EVs are not as green as people expect. They usually get their power from coal. The materials required to make them are mined in environmentally unfriendly ways. They're not easy to dispose of or recycle. The metals used to create EVs release toxic chemicals into the soil that are toxic to important bacteria.

EVs are also much heavier than gasoline cars. Parking garages, safety guard rails, and other infrastructure will have to be re-engineered to deal with the increased weight. It also affects passenger safety in crashes.

Put simply, there's no free lunch. EVs are a marginal improvement in some ways, but they're not the green panacea we've been told.

We need to put away the cultic, apocalyptic, emergency thinking and allow engineers and the market to figure this out.

The boys drink and review O'Hara's Nitro Irish Red, then discuss Tucker's trip to Moscow and his chat with Putin.

When only one side of a story can be told, you can be sure you're not hearing the whole truth. It makes sense to try to hear the other side.

According to some, Putin is the devil and you can't say anything nice about him or give him any platform. (Even though the same critics were jealous that they didn't get the interview.)

Putin begins the interview with a half hour of his perspective on Russian history, but they eventually get into some interesting Q&A about Ukraine and other issues.

Some of Putin's claims were absurd, such as blaming Poland for WWII. But there were other details about possible peace deals to end the Ukraine war that we don't hear about much in the U.S.

After the interview, Tucker went on a tour of Moscow and said some very stupid things about grocery stores and subway stations in Russia. That undercut the significance of the interview and made him look stupid.