Month: March 2026

Pigweed and Crowhill drink and review Lindemans Pecheresse, a Belgian Fruit Lambic, then discuss the show’s uncanny ability to predict the future. In this episode we update past topics and predictions.

An earlier show discussed kill switches and cameras in cars. There have been some developments to that story.

On the show where we questioned whether psychiatry is science (mostly it isn’t), the boys asked if it was time to bring back involuntary commitment. We also discussed the over-prescription of psychiatric drugs and the interesting correlation between mental health and going to church.

Pigweed called attention to the problem of cousin marriage, and what do you know? — Britain is experiencing a huge rise in birth defects as a result of cousin marriage from Pakistani immigrants.

At peak trans madness, the boys predicted a time when the monsters who are promoting this barbarity were fined and jailed. We’re starting to see it happen. Recently, some of these ghoulish doctors were fined millions of dollars for performing a double mastectomy on a child.

The boys did a show calling out gerrymandering foolishness, but Maryland is still going full speed ahead. To “protect democracy,” of course.

Another show on Persia predicted the bombs would start dropping within ten days. That prediction was exactly right. They also predicted that the regime will fall in two months. That prediction is still outstanding. The boys discuss the ongoing Iran war.

Re: the infrastructure show we update the “sewage in the Potomac” story and wonder again why the “mainstream press” is so uninterested.

We recap the Julian Assange and Edward Snowden situation. Trump is now considering pardoning them and then bringing them in to help expose corruption inside the intelligence system. That would be interesting.

The show ends with a letter from long-time listener and contributor JR about whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

The boys drink and review Finest Kind IPA from Smuttynose, then talk about efforts to make Alberta an independent nation.

Pigweed’s news feed has been full of talk about this burgeoning movement in Canada. Alberta is an energy rich province that sends a lot of money to Ottawa, but doesn’t get much in return. Albertans hate being under the thumb of a government thousands of miles away with completely different values.

The story seemed so exciting and right up Pigweed’s alley … until he realized his feed was exaggerating the popularity of the movement. It’s at about 30 percent.

But would Canada allow Alberta to leave even if Albertans voted for it? P&C have their doubts. Would Canada peacefully allow their cash cow to leave?

The boys drink and review a cream ale from Jailbreak Brewery, then discuss the dramatic decline in trust in our institutions.

Trust in institutions used to be the default. Today, it’s the exception.

From corruption and abuse of power to ideological capture and growing economic inequality, many people feel that the institutions that once anchored society — government, media, academia, and public health — have become distant, opaque, and unaccountable. When ordinary citizens see elites displaying obscene wealth, when justice appears unevenly applied, or when powerful organizations seem staffed by insiders and relatives, skepticism becomes inevitable.

But there’s a deeper problem: institutions are not people.
When trust breaks between individuals, you can repair it through conversation and accountability. With large bureaucracies that kind of repair is much harder.

The discussion also examines how ideological conflict fuels distrust. Some argue that skepticism toward institutions reflects a rejection of facts. Others counter that trust was damaged when institutions themselves misled the public on major issues — from shifting COVID narratives to the media’s failure to understand the political forces that produced Donald Trump’s rise in 2016.

So what happens when institutions lose credibility?
Can trust be rebuilt—or are we entering a new era where citizens simply stop believing the organizations that once guided public life?

Pigweed and Crowhill dig into the causes, the consequences, and the uncomfortable questions we can’t ignore.

The boys drink and review a peanut butter porter, then wonder about the nature of the mind and the self.

We like to imagine that our minds are simple and unified — that we think, decide, and evaluate the world rationally. But the more we learn about the mind, the stranger that assumption becomes.

Psychology talks about the conscious and unconscious mind. Behavioral economics divides thinking into fast and slow systems. Neuroscientists debate left brain vs. right brain. Moral psychologists describe the “elephant and rider.” Even the Bible describes a divided inner life: Jeremiah says the heart is so deceitful that we can’t understand it, and Paul admits that the things he wants to do he often doesn’t do. There’s a war of flesh vs. spirit.

So which part of all that is actually “me”?

In this episode, P&C explore the mysteries of the self. For starters, our perceptions are filtered before we even become aware of them. That brains that process that filtered information are shaped by millions of years of evolution. Our reasoning is influenced by emotion, culture, and hidden motives. Even when we take a long time to think carefully about something, the mind doing the thinking may not be as unified as we imagine.

That raises an uncomfortable question: if our minds are jury-rigged systems shaped by survival, how can we honestly evaluate big questions like the existence of God?

Along the way we touch on ideas from psychology, philosophy, and theology, with some laughs and jokes along the way.

If the mind is divided and our perceptions are filtered, the mystery may not only be whether God exists.

The mystery might be what is this strange creature asking the question.

And yes, this episode is partially inspired by “The Logical Song.”

P&C drink and review Manor Hill Brewing’s Dunkel, then wonder if the U.N. still matters.

The United Nations was founded after World War II with an ambitious mission: prevent global war, promote peace, and help nations cooperate on the world’s biggest problems.

But nearly eighty years later, a fair question arises: does it do anything useful?

The boys take a practical look at what the U.N. actually does today. It clearly hasn’t stopped major conflicts — from Ukraine to the Middle East — and it hasn’t been the engine that lifted countries out of poverty. So what role does it really play?

We dig into the less glamorous side of the organization: peacekeeping missions that try to keep fragile countries from sliding back into civil war, humanitarian programs that feed millions of people, refugee operations, disease control, and the quiet international standards that keep things like aviation and shipping functioning smoothly.

But that leads to deeper questions:

• Is the U.N. a meaningful institution — or mostly a talking shop?
• Does it solve problems, or just manage them?
• Would the world look any different if it didn’t exist?
• And if it’s not preventing wars or creating prosperity, what exactly is its purpose?

It’s a conversation about global institutions, unintended consequences, and the difference between what an organization was created to do and what it actually does.