Drunk Post

I don't drink much, but tonight I bouight a 24 oz. Bud Ice, and now, two-thirds of the way through it, it tastes like college. So I thought I'd just type some stuff and post it and who gives a crap. It's been like forever since I was drunk, so let's not lose this opportunity.

First, I'm sick of not having campfires with close friends. It's only around campfires, it seems to me, that everybody knows to put aside their fucking stupid differences like religion and politics and whatever, and just be cool.

Second, but, since we're not around a campfire: I'm sick of halfassedly agreeing with my liberal friends just to make them think I'm reasonable. For example, I'm actually NOT a racist. I just sometimes say I am because you tell me "everybody is." But I'm not. And another thing: I'm sick of defending my motives, so I'm going to flip this shit: I'm starting to believe (really, I am--this isn't just rhetoric [I'll get to Rhetoric next]) that progressives/liberals don't so much want to help all the poor people of the world as be thought of as caring about all the poor people of the world. I think that because how else can I explain that nothing in history as far as I can tell gives any support to any liberal/progressive notion of economic theory. It's rotten eggs all the way down, and the poor people are the ones who continue getting scrwed by it. Fucking tell me that Obama has done anything for anybody who's poor except make sure that they stay that way.

Third, I think people give up too easily. Where's our tenacity, people?

Fourth, I honestly like Glenn Beck (that one's going to get me in trouble. Let me explain: I like Glenn Beck relatively. I mean, it's not like I can get anyone to read Karl Popper or Carl Menger or Eugen (pronounced oy-gen) Bohm-Bawerk or Ludwig Von Mises... or even Thomas Jefferson. So I'll settle for Glenn Beck, who does whole hour-long pieces on Calvin Coolidge. I firmly believe that nobody evil has the kind of energy it takes to do a three-hour radio program, a one-hour television show, and write bestsellers, and show-up at the 8/28 rally in Washington.

Fifth, I just forgot to finish the bottom third of this beer. Hold on.

Sixth, I think I'll always wonder whether I'm understood by my father, and whether I understand him, and I fear that understanding will come too late, as in a Henry James novel.

Seventh, I just finished the New Testament again last night, and I wasn't particularly moved, which kinda upsets me.

Eights, America works out if you have faith. That's true. I got a job and a new office and a baby and a wife who loves me, all in four years since the Holy Spirit smacked my head at a bowling alley in Indiana.

(9) It's not just about reading Plato, it's about understanding him. When I dissented from postmodernism, people kneejerkedly accused me of being "a Platonist." I didn't knwo what that meant then, but now I think I do., And I'm honored. Thank you.

10: Oh yeah, Rhetoric. You bitches know there's a difference between truth-seeking speech and Rhetoric. You can't say the only difference between 1940s America and 1940s Soviet Union or 1940s Germany was rhetoric. It was reality.

11: A train's going by, which happens about 9 times a day.

12) You can't buy liquor in a grocery store in Norht Carolikna. Only liquor stores sell liquore. And all liquore stores are owned by the state. I haven't bought any liquor since I moved here, liberals.

1113: I did a presentation on superstition and the number 13 and the Detroit Tigers in fourth or fifth grade. I pretty much plagiarized it from a book.

14: I just finished my beer, and the Soup is on E!


fenhopper said...

"I firmly believe that nobody evil has the kind of energy it takes to do a three-hour radio program, a one-hour television show, and write bestsellers, and show-up at the 8/28 rally in Washington."


but who cares about calling him evil. isn't he just…boring? isn't his logic ridiculous?

1615 said...

第一次來這裡 愛上你的部落格 感謝你的分享...............................................................

Casey said...

I'm sober now, but no, Beck's logic isn't any more ridiculous than any other "pop" pundit. I wouldn't defend him in an academic setting, but that's why I mentioned all the Austrians... if you want to talk about logic, I'll go to the mat for Von Mises.

Last night Beck pointed out that in 1920 the economy contracted, so Coolidge did essentially what Reagan did: he cut top marginal tax rates (on the rich). In the seven years before he left office, the whole country boomed. There were almost no cars, very few electrically wired homes in 1920... by '27, well, "the roaring twenties."

And I know: cause & effect, blah blah blah... but you don't like historical arguments, right? So I understand why Beck doesn't appeal to you. You like soaring rhetoric and the promise of a new dawn.

Well, now I'm just antagonizing.

fenhopper said...

well if beck is only as good as any other pundit, why the hell do you like him? all pundits are maddening. i only like the funny ones. and i'll give him that: beck's performances are pretty impressive. but it's not really "about" history just because he puts dates down on his chalkboard.

and historical arguments are fine, but the assurance that often comes from them is what i don't care to pursue.

you're right about cause and effect and blah. but you like to land on your assurance of what is obviously true, to you.

for every set of influences that you like to argue points to the absolute wisdom of you your favored policy, another historical economical genius can list what other influences are necessary or not available or would lead to another outcome.

and how do you structure your argument--appreciating beck's maudlin performances and cheap arguments as you do--that you're not drawn to, and enchanted by soaring rhetoric and the promise of a new day.

if you find him entertaining, i agree. if you find him a fine counterbalance to keith o, i agree.

if you find him a good model of historical inquiry, i disagree.

Casey said...

That's all fair, actually. But let me drag you to where I'm standing: I like Beck the way I like microwave-able Lean Cuisine pizza. It sure isn't "pizza," but it reminds me of real pizza. And since real pizza is my favorite food, I prefer a Lean Cuisine pizza to a Lean Cuisine burrito, because I don't like real burritos.

So I like Beck only because he agrees with Mises, and Beck is like Lean Cuisine Mises. And I don't think you'd say that there are no substantive arguments in Mises--even as I wouldn't say that there are no substantive arguments in Marx or Keynes, despite the fact that I disagree with aspects of their logic and conclusions.

But sometimes I get the impression that you think all economic theory & history is futile, and that's where I won't budge. You're not saying that here, are you?

Casey said...

Which is to say: I love a good soaring rhetorical performance including tears and fear, as long as I like it's general direction.

Jon Sealy said...

I think I remember that night at the bowling alley in Indiana. Good times.

fenhopper said...

not futile. but almost always, thru the fault of the readers more than the theorists, the cause of unfounded hubris.

because would you really feel that you could convince krugman to change his mind if only he read history and economic theory as carefully as you?

Casey said...

The interview between Bork and Hayek that I just posted has finally quieted my mind on this point: at one point, Bork calls Hayek out, essentially asking him, "Isn't it true that you're really expressing a preference for a certain kind of society over another, and not simply describing 'the best way' to run a civilization?"

Hayek kinda dances around the topic, and then finally admits, in so many words, "Yes, I prefer a free society to an equal society."

So if it comes down to preferences, I'm willing to let the dog lie. It's modestly frustrating, of course, because I would like now to win you over to preferring a free society over an equal society, but... well, maybe, at least, now we've got ground for another conversation?

fenhopper said...

well with a statement like that, about freedom vs equality, we do need another conversation. because you've misrepresented both the dilemma, and my hypothetical stance on it.

Casey said...

I was just paraphrasing Hayek on "the dilemma," and he has a Nobel Prize, just like Obama.

fenhopper said...

yeah but that was a prize in economics. what does a theoretical mathematician know about liberty and the human spirit?

Casey said...

From Individualism and Economic Order:

"In the social sciences, however, the situation is the exact reverse. On the one hand, experiment is impossible, and we have therefore no knowledge of definite regularities in the complex phenomena in the same sense as we have in the natural sciences. But, on the other hand, the position of man, midway between natural and social phenomena--of the one of which he is an effect and of the other a cause--brings it about that the essential basic facts which we need for the explanation of social phenomena are part of common experience, part of the stuff of our thinking. In the social sciences it is the elements of the complex phenomena which are known beyond the possibility of dispute. In the natural sciences they can be at best only surmised. The existence of these elements is so much more certain than any regularities in the complex phenomena to which they give rise that it is they which constitute the truly empirical factor in the social sciences. There can be little doubt that it is this different position of the empirical element in the process of reasoning in the two groups of disciplines which is at the root of much of the confusion with regard to their logical character. There can be no doubt that the social as well as the natural sciences have to employ deductive reasoning."

See also, The Sensory Order: an Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology, first published in 1952.


fenhopper said...

see what i mean?

Monica said...

Love it.