Beer and Conversation with Pigweed and Crowhill

P&C drink and review a Wee Heavy from Belhaven brewery, then discuss Pearl Davis and her opinions on men’s rights. The boys first heard about Pearl when The Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan and Michael Knowles interviewed her. She’s an anti-feminist but also somewhat anti-traditionalist. Pearl tries to focus on reality – the facts on the ground – rather than coming from a particular ideological viewpoint. From Pearl’s perspective, marriage is a raw deal for men. Here are some quotes from Pearl, to give you a feel for her point of view. “Women can’t be criticized on the internet” If a man says a woman isn’t wife material, is he allowed to have that opinion? Traditional conservatives believe in holding men accountable. A man can’t be broke. He has to take care of his family. He has to stay in shape. When women do something wrong, it’s always because they were lied to. It’s always because of feminism. Why is it that when women do something wrong it’s always somebody else’s fault? “Women like to be objectified” Women only cry about objectification when they can’t get what they want out of being objectified “In all of history there have always been concubines. They have a place.” “When women lead, societies and relationships go to Hell.” “Why can’t we have a conversation about women without ‘but men.’” “Women should submit to their husbands in all things.” (from the Bible) “I prefer prostitutes to most tradcon women. At least the prostitutes are honest.” “Don’t be a prostitute and then find God at 29.” “Many women screw up their own lives and then make it everyone else’s problem.” “I’m not the enemy. The real enemy is these simps and these old, bitter, single women with nothing better to do.” “Old, bitter women lie to younger women because they don’t want to be alone in their misery.” “Women are fatter than ever. They’re sluttier than ever. More mental disorders. More tattoos. More drinking.”

The boys drink and review Chocolate Cherry Stout by Firestone Walker Brewing, then discuss an alternative history book about the evolution of humans. In this view of human evolution, a different group of humans – the Floyds – took over Beringia and then migrated into America. When Columbus came to the Americas, he didn’t find Homo Sapiens. He found the Floyds. The book starts by introducing us to this alternative modern life, where modern man and this other version of man are living side by side. We learn the history – from Beringia until the conflict with Columbus. First contact took place in Florida, which is why they’re called “Floros,” politely, or “Floyds,” derogatively. The Floros are very compact and strong, and very useful in close-in fighting. They were captured en masse and taken to Europe to serve as infantry in everybody’s armies. They integrated into society to some extent, but remained second-class citizens. Once warfare modernized, and close-in fighting was not prized to the same extent, the Floros lost some of their utility in the infantry. They still did manual labor, which they were very good at, but they didn’t bring particularly good skills. Modern man (homo sapiens) tried to integrate them into society. One flaw in the book is an unrealistic expectation that there was no interbreeding – because the Floyds were not very attractive. The Floridius Rights Movement advocates for the Floros and tries to help them, but the Floros don’t want the help. The book pokes fun at a couple modern themes. Liberal woke activists who protest on some people’s behalf, but those people don’t really want it. A simpler life is a worse life, and more material stuff makes a better life. After the end of the book review, P&C discuss some of the issues raised by the book, such as why are we the only version of “man” left on the planet? Why did the Neanderthals and Denisovans die out? P&C go into an extensive discussion of differences between Neanderthals and modern humans, and why we may have replaced them.

P&C drink and review Experimental Black IPA from Bell’s, then discuss Christian Nationalism. First, what the heck is Christian Nationalism? Pigweed started with three theories. An invention of the left to denigrate patriotic Christians. It’s a real movement that is way overdue if we’re going to save this great nation. It’s a real movement that is a threat to religious liberty and will transform America into a theocracy. Were Christian nationalists behind Jan. 6, and do they want to create something like The Handmaid’s Tale? That’s what the left wants us to believe. The opposite is the case. The left is trying to eliminate the influence of Christianity. The Amy Coney Barrett nomination process showed that clearly. We’ve come to the point that being a sincere believer might disqualify you from public office. Four separate Supreme Court cases – that have never been overturned – say that the United States is a Christian nation. What does that mean? Is it contrary to pluralism? Does it mean that we round up unbelievers and make them second-class citizens? Quite the opposite. It’s because we’re a Christian nation that we give rights and respect to other people. The fact is that all law is based on some system of morality. The only question is what morality you are going to use. *** Here's a link to the Florida Man episode. https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/XcC185ICaJb

P&C drink and review Hell or High Watermelon from 21st Amendment Brewery, then, with special guest Longinus, discuss the cost of professional sports. Why are we, in the words of Pigweed, willing to spend so much money to watch grown men play children’s games? But that’s not to the point. The boys are focused on the cost of a baseball or football game. Why has it increased so much? Is it worth it? From 1970 to the present – in today’s dollars – the cost for a family of four to attend a baseball game is about 4x. Who pays this, and why? Along with this increase in prices, we have an increase in coverage. When Pigweed was a lad, there was one, one-hour show on sports. Now, we have several 24x7 sports stations talking about sports all year long. There’s also the moral question. In a world that can’t decide what a woman is, sports provides some clear guidelines. The player is either in or out. The ball is in the strike zone or it’s not. Another angle – people can’t sit quietly with their own thoughts. They need a distraction. Every bar and restaurant has constant sports. Is sports filling a hole left by the lack of religion, or community? Also, to what extent is this a public question? Is it in the local government’s interest to get people involved in local sports?

The boys drink and review Pigweed's homebrew Irish Stout, then invite John Wayne Jew onto the show to speak about the month in woke (at about 4:00). The silliness of woke-ism is almost unbelievable. P&C and their special guest discuss some of the obvious lunacies, including the following. Some Canadian police recently encouraged residents to leave their car keys outside so thieves can steal cars without any violent confrontation. After the destruction of the Key bridge in Baltimore, some wokesters want a name chance, since Francis Scott Key doesn't meet modern moral standards. A Democratic representative says black should be exempt from taxation to make up for past injustices. NPR hired 50 new interns. Only 5 of them were white males. On the positive side, some companies are pulling back on DEI and other woke policies, but it's not clear if that's a significant trend.

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.

Pigweed, Crowhill, Longinus, and all three wives went to Baltimore to see an adaptation of The Oresteia, which was originally a 3-part play by Aeschylus. In this podcast they reflect on the play and related issues. The play focuses on the web of vengeance within the family of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, starting with Agamemnon's sacrifice of their daughter, Iphigenia, before the battle of Troy. When Agamemnon returns home with Cassandra the prophetess of Apollo as a spoil of war, Clytemnestra invites him back in regal style, but then murders both her husband and his new girlfriend. It then falls on Orestes, their son -- urged on by their daughter Electra -- to avenge the death of his father. But then, who is to avenge Clytemnestra? How far does this go? Where does it end? The play addresses issues of just war, faith, free will and determinism, religious and moral obligations, family relations, and vengeance and justice. The show ends with a discussion of Troy and the alleged historical backdrop to the play.

The boys drink and review Founder's Dirty Bastard, a Scotch ale, then they discuss the distinction between Scotch and Scottish ale before they get into five topics in five minutes each. #1 Why can't we deport violent criminals who are here illegally? NYC mayor Eric Adams says he has to change the law before he can do that. How did we get into such a ridiculous position? #2 Why did Sports Illustrated tank? Was it the internet? Online vs. offline issues? The overall decline in publishing? Or was it that they went woke? The media doesn't want to admit that going woke sometimes causes you to go broke. #3 Is the NFL responsible when people don't dress warmly at a cold football game? Do we want a nanny state where every organization is telling you what's best for you? #4 Grammar and usage problems that bother P&C. It's vs. its. Unnecessary apostrophes. Then vs than. Media and data are plural. Your vs. you're. To, too, and two. Their, there, they're. Principal vs. principle. Capitol vs. capital. Insure, assure, ensure. #5 Voting for the good of the country even if it affects you negatively. Some people actually have the good of others in mind even when that requires incredible sacrifice.

In another edition of "shortcut to the classics," P&C drink and review Pigweed's homebrewed IPA, then discuss Lord of the Flies by William Golding. (Starting at 2:55.) Pigweed gives a little biographical background on the author, then the boys delve into the heart of darkness and survival in this compelling short novel. The story takes place on a deserted island, where a group of British boys find themselves stranded following a plane crash. With no adults to guide them, the boys attempt to govern themselves ... with disastrous consequences. "Lord of the Flies" is a compelling exploration of human nature, power dynamics, and the thin veneer of civilization that separates order from chaos. Through the eyes of Ralph, Piggy, Jack, and other vividly drawn characters, Golding poses urgent questions about leadership, morality, and the inherent savagery within us all. As we discuss the novel's themes, symbols, and the development of the characters and their interactions, we invite you to reflect on what "Lord of the Flies" reveals about the complexities of human behavior and how fragile "civilization" really is.

P&C drink and review a Bock from Guilford Hall Brewing, then ask whether educated people are smarter than the man on the street. Even if you could make the point that smarter people should make public policy, are our educational systems making people smarter? Probably not. "Man on the street" interviews regularly show that college-educated people are dumb as a mud fence. If you ask the college student and the man on the street questions like this ... * Can men menstruate? * Is drug-induced breastmilk from a man as good as milk from a woman? * Is your neighborhood safer with fewer cops? * Should illegal aliens get a home and an allowance? ... it's the college student who gives you nonsense and the man on the street who talks sense. If you're educated, you might believe something like this. Genitalia have nothing to do with your "gender," but cutting them off or creating fake ones is "gender affirming." Babied, temper-tantrum-throwing morons in the universities have created an environment where people are afraid to say the truth. As a consequence, education has become indoctrination -- into woke insanity.

The boys drink and review Snow Pants Oatmeal Stout by Union Brewing, then discuss how the left tends to project what they're doing on the right. (Starting at 4:00.) "Projection" is, according to Freud, a kind of defense mechanism where people attribute their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, and motives onto other people. Let's say there was a political party that spent four years saying "illegitimate president, not my president, Russian collusion, Stacey Abrams is the real governor, Glenn Youngkin is not the real governor," then after having done that for years they said "why are Republicans such election deniers?" Is this a Freudian thing, or is a conscious, deliberate, strategic choice to accuse the other side of what you're doing? This concept applies to political violence. After years of violence, riots, burning public buildings, etc., the Democrats accuse conservatives of being domestic terrorists. "Threat to Democracy" has become the phrase of the hour for the left. After they tried to take down an elected president, caricatured all calls to tighten election laws (to make it harder to cheat) as "voter suppression," and so on, they have the gall to say that ff you don't vote for the Democrats, "democracy" is at stake. The people who try to remove a candidate from the ballot aren't suppressing democracy. No. That's the people who say the voters should have a right to choose. It's upside down world, and the accusations are completely unhinged.