Glibertarians.com 2018 Archive

Category: Opinion

This is not real glibertarianism: the importance of definitions in politics

Hello and welcome back to “Pie ponders”, in which Pie – that is me, for those who are situationally unaware – raises questions on various topics of great importance. Today, we talk about definitions and their role in politics.

What is glibertarianism, as a doctrine? Let me drop some definitions on you, as the self-appointed arbiter of all things glib for today. Well it is the perfect political idea that leads to liberty, universal happiness, a better world where all the men are thicc and all the women can deadlift 800 pounds. In this utopia everyone knows wine is better than beer, scotch is better than bourbon and the NBA is the best sports league in the US. Anything else, well that is not real glibertarianism. Don’t @ me, as the kids say these days on the twits.

I noticed a real problem with definitions in current debates on that most marvelous of mediums, the internet. Whenever something looks bad, well that is not the real deal. See socialism. While this may be seen as a version of the true Scotsman fallacy, I am not sure it is quite the same.

Being a Scotsman, you see, can have some measurable definition- was one born in Scotland would be a start? On the other hand, one can claim any ideology one wants, without having to suffer through haggis and bagpipe music, and very often it can indeed be the case that X is not a true liberal/conservative, but just claims to be. For the actual ideology, we need to see if we can define things to see what is what, and then to measure the individual, preferably by the walk they walk as opposed to the talk they talk. Talking is exceedingly easy, after all.

All failures of socialism were, off course, not true socialism. Well, socialism needs to have a clear definition to see what is and is not true. And this definition, like all definitions in politics, needs to respect some ground rules.

Let us start with Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and workers’ self-management of the means of production^[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.^[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.^[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them

These are the alleged goals of socialism, while implementation takes a variety of forms, mostly authoritarian and disastrous in outcome. To go around the issue of the bear in the room, internet socialist change the definition in an idiotic manner and say socialism is some sort of perfectly just, utopian, classless society where everyone is happy. This is a neat little trick, if you define an ideology as an ideal outcome, whenever it fails, well it was not the real one.

One rule of defining ideology should be that you cannot define it as outcome, but as the path to reach the outcome. Outcome is not guaranteed. Outcome is what is expected and needs to be proven. So you say we do socialism like this and it leads to that. If the result is an authoritarian hellhole, it does not mean it was not real socialism, it means socialism just does not lead to what proponents say it leads to. Critics of communism, on both left and right, said before it was implemented the very first time that it will lead to dystopian authoritarianism. And they were right. Which means communism is a bad ideology, not that the USSR was not real communism.

Certainly, one can very well claim their own personal flavor of socialism will not lead to all that. But since every attempt failed, it takes a bit of a burden of proof that a slight variation will succeed. Every attempt under the umbrella of socialism failed, and one can easily find an infinity of minor variations that are claimed different from any other minor variations attempted. Why, beyond empty claims and wishful thinking, will this variation succeed? This time the right people will be in charge is not acceptable, because that is, again, an outcome that cannot be guaranteed. I think we are at the point where we can safely say socialism failed and ignore minor variations which keep the fundamentals the same, as the fundamentals are rotten.

The criticism of socialism is based on incompatibility with human nature, not due to minor flaws in minor variations. If, for example, there can be no functioning economy without property – no way to allocate resources, establish prices as has been shown long ago – no minor variation of property-less ideologies will help. Because the core is the problem, not the “implementation.”

Let us take a look at another definition.

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes.^[1][2] This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.

This seems a straightforward definition, with some goals that different between flavors and may or may not be achieved. On the other hand, internet feminist define feminism as „equal rights for men and women” in order to say that people who do not consider themselves feminists are against equal rights. This is again a type of definition I oppose. You cannot define an ideology as abstract concept.

Feminism is a loose group of ideologies who claim to strive for what they believe to be equality. That does not mean that is what they actually want, just what they say they want. It does not mean it is what they will actually achieve. It does not mean there are no other ways to achieve equality besides feminism. As such, it does not mean that those who think there is a better way are against equality. Off course, inside feminism there are also multiple subcategories, being various waves, attitudes (to men, government, trans, sex work etc etc etc) or simply opinions.

Now that we can be somewhat more honest about definitions, we should ask ourselves how useful are they? Because one of the key words in both definitions above is “range”, which means those two labels cover a whole range of movements. So are they of any use? Do we need to break them down into subsets or can we use the whole as a guideline? And if we break down enough, do we not get to individual opinions and decide to forgo labels and focus on the individual? Off course not, that is crazy talk. And humans like to categorize things, to put them in boxes and apply labels. In the end, we can only address an ideology by the common underlying paradigm of all variations.

Wait Pie, but if labels may not be of use and people keep using them, that may lead to a total shitshow! Quite astute, dear reader, but fortunately, looking at the world, things somehow seem to have worked out perfectly, so no worries. Libertarianism in general has an even bigger problem as there is less than the usual amount of groupthink, the labels are even more unworkable. So what is the solution? Personally, I am going to go with get drunk and ignore all this. If you have a better plan, do tell.

December 31, 2018
The Review Where I Mess With Texas
I am going to write something controversial. I am fully aware of what I am about to write, is probably going to result in the very least, being pelted with rotten cabbage.

This is my review of Shiner Holiday Cheer.

Not my photo

What is so controversial about this particular beer….I’ll get to that. You see, I don’t particularly care for Shiner or as the brewery is officially know as Spoetzl Brewery. This is awkward coming from somebody that happens to like Bocks. I just don’t think Shiner is that great, to be honest. I will have my AR at the ready while this is active, because this be fighting words. People from Texas just love this stuff.

Spoetzl Brewery to it’s credit does have an interesting history. Like many large breweries it was founded by a German Immigrant:

Kosmos Spoetzl, a German immigrant brewmaster, learned of the Shiner operation and coleased the facility with Oswald Petzold with an option to buy in 1915. Spoetzl had attended brewmaster’s school and apprenticed for three years in Germany and worked for eight years at the Pyramid Brewery in Cairo, Egypt, before moving to San Antonio in search of a better climate for his health. He came, carrying the recipe for a Bavarian beer made by his family from pure malt and hops. Within a year Spoetzl bought the brewery, which he renamed the “Home Brewery,” and began to produce beer in wooden kegs and bottles. After 1916 the beer was packaged in glass returnable bottles; aluminum kegs were first used in 1947, nonreturnable bottles came in 1958, party kegs in 1964, and cans in 1970. When Prohibition was declared in 1918, Spoetzl produced near beer, ice, and, according to some sources, regular beer as well. During this period, he sustained the brewery by doing construction work in Florida with crews and trucks brought from Texas. After his wife’s death in 1921, Spoetzl considered returning to Bavaria but was convinced by his daughter to retain the business. “Miss Celie,” as Cecilie was called, served as business manager of the firm, and her daughter Rose joined the firm in 1964. August Haslbeck, who served as brewmaster, was the son of a noted Bavarian maltmaster and Spoetzl’s nephew. He later returned to Germany to complete an apprenticeship and receive a brewmaster’s degree. With repeal of Prohibition in 1933, the business resumed, with the introduction of “Texas Export,” a new product later known as “Texas Special” beer. Sales were made within a 100-mile radius. Over the next decade the company added a new bottling room and brew house, and in 1947 Spoetzl constructed the white brick Alamo-style plant still in use today.

The first time I had Shiner Bock, it was probably the only one available not made by what was then Anheuser-Busch. It was okay but as I drank more beer, including actual bocks from Germany, I realized there was something missing. I don’t know what it is, but I’ll just focus on the basics.
- Is it malty? Yes.
- Is it balanced? Yes.
- Does it have body? Not really.
The last one I think is where it falls short. While it is carbonated it dissipates so quickly that I feel like I am just drinking flat beer. It’s like opening a beer, telling yourself you will finish it later and putting it back in the fridge. When you get back to it, its just not the same. It is this feeling except I just opened it. Now, many Mexican beers have this same quality, except they aren’t necessarily pretending to be something their not. Then again, Shiner Bock is what it is, take it or leave it. I’ll accept it if offered, but I am not about to buy it.

Not my photo, nor am I participating in this particular parade.

I have had several of their varieties while I was TDY at Sheppard AFB, near Wichita Falls, TX. The liquor store in town had quite the selection of all their varieties and since I was in my 20s and quite frankly stuck in Wichita Falls for a month…I had what is in hindsight, a disturbing amount of beer while getting hotline certified on overhead power lines. One that does stand out in my opinion from Spoetzl is their Czech Pilsner. While it may seem like faint praise, this is actually quite good and should I actually find it in Arizona, I might be inclined to buy it. Unfortunately, I only ever see Shiner Bock.

So how it Holiday Cheer? Same as the rest of them, which is pretty flat. Also it is very fruity, perhaps not in a good way. Last year (yes, I’ve been doing this over a year now)I reviewed a holiday ale that was also fruity but it had significantly more body, and the malt complexity went well with the fruitiness. This one is just sweet, so I slammed it down, and opened an amber ale. Shiner Holiday Cheer: 2.5/5
December 29, 2018
What Are We Reading

OMWC

One of the few benefits of the pain-in-the-ass called “relocation” is the occasional discovery of something one possesses but had forgotten. In my case, it was one of my favorite books from my childhood, covers missing, pages yellowed and tattered, thumbed through to nearly the point of collapse, but still readable and delightful. Curtis MacDougall‘s Hoaxes is a classic, ranking with Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and Randi’s Flim-Flam in the category of “books to help you develop a healthy cynicism.” Put aside MacDougall’s idiot politics, the guy could write and do real research.

SugarFree

The menu that Cracker Barrel Typhoid Mary handed me. Ugh.

Riven

Ah, so when we last left off, I was just fixing to read Grave Peril, the third book in the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher. Since then, I’ve finished that book–and Summer Knight, Death Masks, Blood Rites, Dead Beat, Something Borrowed, I Was a Teenage Bigfoot, and Proven Guilty. I’m currently about hip-deep in White Night, which isn’t as Christmasy as the title had initially led me to believe, but then I’ve had Christmas on the brain since Halloween, so… Maybe that’s not on Butcher. Also reads but timeline-ambiguous: Vignette, A Fistful of Warlocks, B is for Bigfoot, and A Restoration of Faith. Clearly very easy and whimsical stories to read, they’re entertaining and just-distinct-enough from each other that I will likely read the entire series right into the dirt. As long as Butcher keeps writing them, I’ll keep reading them, and I think I’m about halfway through the entire catalog at this point, if I include all the sundry shorts. … So he’s got another month or so to write the next one before I get to the current end of the series.

mexican sharpshooter

My reading once again, has been limited by what I read my four year old.

This month’s entry is Shel Silverstein’s classic, The Giving Tree. It is a touching story on the surface, but upon closer examination is a cautionary tale about the moral hazard of the welfare state. The story begins with a boy playing with a tree but inevitably, time plays its terrible curse upon the boy and the tree. The boy grows and no longer has interest in the tree. The tree notices the boy coming by less often, but when he does, she finds the boy is missing something. The boy first has no money, but the tree offers the boy her apples. Now this is act of pure kindness on the tree’s part, and also an important lesson missed by the boy. The apples you see, were meant to be sold in the market for a profit so the boy was able to have spending money. Given the utter lack of overhead costs incurred by the boy, any apple sold was sold for a profit. The boy then makes the mistake of spending all his money foolishly.

His mismanagement of the tree’s gift is evident because the next time the boy comes to the tree for help, he is in need of a house. Perhaps he knocked up some girl and needed a house. Who knows? Ultimately, if he had been a better steward of the tree’s gift of her apples, he would have used the profits from the apple sales, and applied those towards the startup for another, more profitable venture. At the very least, the profits could have been used towards a down payment on a house. Given he had no money tells me it was spent on women and booze, because he now had a family and was once again asking the tree for help. She offers her branches to build a home, and probably a shabby one at that. Apple trees aren’t exactly known for their high strength wood, unless this was some kind of magic tree.

Clearly, the boy made a mistake in who he married, because the next time he comes to the tree for help he wants to get away and have an adventure. Between his debts and his dilapidated home, I would want to get away from everything too. The tree once again offers the boy help by allowing him to chop down her trunk, and use it to make a boat. Boats are nothing more than a hole in the water filled with money if you ask me. The tree apparently was happy, but not really.

Behold! The Welfare King upon his throne.

The story concludes with the boy comeing back to the tree as an old man. Surly, broken down—he can’t even chew on apples anymore out of disgust for his poor decision making. The tree inevitably offers the only thing left she can as a stump, and offers the boy a place to sit his lazy ass down.

The lesson here is the moral hazard of the welfare state. The tree gives selflessly, and the boy takes advantage of her generosity by stealing everything she is worth—even in death. A better course of action would have been to give the boy the apples as a loan. How do you pay back a loan to a tree? I don’t know, maybe the tree could’ve loaned the apples with the stipulation the boy plant a dozen of those apples somewhere. Something, anything really to instill upon the boy the apples he is selling to spend on hookers and booze was not his to begin with. The smartest course of action, being that he could clearly sell apples, is to plant more trees. Then the tree wouldn’t be so damn lonely for one, being surrouded by other trees, but the boy would have a larger supply of apples to bring to market. Perhaps even plant a few more trees, and entire orchard of trees, and become de facto king of the magical apple tree forest. That never occurred to the creepy bearded, bare-footed Silversteen. Obviously, because he wanted you to believe it was better to give everything to everyone, especially the undeserving.

Ayn Rand would’ve had an epic, 96 page field day with this.

jesse.in.mb

Coming off a rough few months and finally getting a chance to do some reading. I finally finished the Lies of Locke Lamorra which I mentioned a quarter ago. It got better after where I was at before, but I’m not sure I’m going to pick up the next book in the series. There were open questions, but the tale itself comes to a satisfying close.

Jeff Wheeler’s Storm Glass is another first book in a series. I *might* pick up the next one. The blurb made it sound like an impressively hamfisted parable for modern socioeconomic disparities set in a roughly steampunk (English, not wild-west) setting, but it was more enjoyable than the blurb made it sound.

The Shadow & Bone trilogy (also apparently called the Grisha trilogy) is again a vaguely steampunk set of novels reminiscent of The Legend of Kora. The setting is overtly Russian and at about the end of the tsarist era, but in this universe some people are born to manipulate aspects of the world around them and some people are just fodder for the constant wars at play. There were a few points in the series where the story faltered, but the cadence kept me reading and I put down 2.5 of the books in a day-and-a-half.

Currently reading Roadside Picnic, but I’m barely through the foreward so it’ll have to wait until next time.

SP

I have been reading self-help and how-to books this month.

”How to Relocate AGAIN and Stay Married”

”Creative Arson: When You REALLY Can’t Pack One More Box”

”Toss It! (Grandma’s dead, she’ll never know you gave her ‘heirlooms’ away)”

“How to Get Moving Quotes Without Talking to Humans”

“Nobody Needs 23 Kinds of Wine: Throwing Packing Parties to Reduce Your Cellar”

”Do the Math, Or Is it Cheaper to Replace All Your Household Goods Than Move Them?”

“Ikea is Everywhere: Why Move Your Furniture?”

Brett L

I read to unwind, and after a hell of a month of November, I dove into a whole crapload of books this month. Not all of them great, but several pretty quality reads.

I started with Gears of the City by Felix Gilman. I’ve had a pretty serious literary crush on Felix since reading The Half-Made World. Gears is a sequel to his 2007 book Thunderer. in the first book, a man named Arjun came to The City looking for his God, who had left Arjun’s monastery quiet and empty. The City contains hundreds of gods, and Arjun gets tangled up with two in particular, one a god of rot, water, and death; the other a god of flight, wind, and freedom. Many hijinks ensue and we leave the first book with Arjun going to The Mountain to look for his god. But the The City and The Mountain are mystical places, not really fixed or Euclidean in space or time. The second book picks up with Arjun having been spat out by The Mountain with a hazy set of memories. Short version is, the first book is great, the second one’s reach exceeds its grasp. I really wanted to love it, but it tied up too many things too neatly. Still loads of great characters and imaginative encounters, just not as sexy.

After that came something lighter — the 4th installment of Drew Hayes’s NPC series (officially Spells, Swords, & Stealth series according to Amazon, but the first one was NPCs). Anyhow, this is I guess, LitRPG genre? There are two interwoven stories in the series. One is that the characters in the DnD-style game are actually in existence somewhere and controlled by people in our plane. The other is a group of NPCs who form a party to save their little town. I think its a fun series. Has some original twists and turns. Hayes does a good job between just shrugging his shoulders at some things (adventurers take stupid risks. its what they do.) and really nice world building on the other. Some of the characters include a gnome paladin of the god of minions, a half-orc wizard, and a former player-controlled character who should have died on a natural 1 roll but instead became an NPC.

I also read the first two books of the Books of Babel series, Senlin Ascends and Arm of the Sphinx. The first book was wonderful steampunk. The second was not as original or lyrical, but moved the story along. A slightly older schoolmaster named Senlin takes his new bride to the Tower of Babel for a honeymoon (think steampunk technology, trains, some electricity, lots of steam engines) and immediately gets separated in the crowd. Thereafter begins his quest to reunite with his wife, in which he discovers that his morality is fluid, and he will do whatever it takes to get back to her. The second book takes Senlin to the mysterious Sphinx who seems to run and repair all of the automation for the tower. Senlin makes a deal to get closer to finding his wife.

I also read a short story from Mark Lawrence in the Nona Grey universe called Bound. Lawrence continues to be one of my favorite writers, but $3 for 16k words is at the edge of my price range for anybody. Only read it if you are caught up on the Jorg/Red Queen and Nona Grey books and are waiting impatiently for the next book to drop.

Finally, I started the Expanse books by James SA Corey. I don’t know why I hadn’t read them before, since space opera is absolutely my jam, but I had not. Nor have I watched any of the series on Syfy/Amazon. I really feel cheated that I haven’t been reading this all along. Although given the sheer number of novels and novellas in the series, it would be great if someone could tell me when to pull the ripcord so I don’t become bitter and disillusioned.

December 28, 2018
Bob Boberson tries to sound intellectual about Envy

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. -Exodus 20:17

It is interesting to note that the Tenth Commandment and final commandment is the only statute of the Decalogue that is concerned with an internal desire as opposed to an outward action. (Arguably you could claim the first is as well but that is a discussion for another forum) The author of the Ten Commandments, whether you believe it to be God or Moses or someone else entirely, thought purging envy from ones inner being to be a moral imperative worthy to be listed alongside prohibitions on murder, theft and bearing false witness. The reason, I believe, is because envy is a destructive force that left unchecked destroys the envious and wreaks havoc on those around them.

Winston Churchill famously said:

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

We Glibs repeat this creed daily in various ways as we comment on the avarice, greed and base human instincts that drive all things political and particularly as we see those vices on full display in the antics of the progressive/socialist left. Envy’s various manifestations can accurately be assumed to be the underpinning passion that motivates left-wing ideology.

But what is envy? I think Kant’s definition is probably the most precise:

“Envy is a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. [It is] a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. [Envy] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying others’ good fortune.” (The Metaphysics of Morals 6:459)

It is necessary at this point to distinguish between envy and jealousy as the terms are often confused in common usage. Viewed through the lens of the Stoic passions; delight, lust, fear, and distress; jealousy differs from envy in that jealousy is rooted in fear whereas envy is rooted in distress. Jealousy requires three parties; the subject, the rival and the beloved. Jealousy is the fear of the subject losing the affections of the beloved to the rival. More simply put, it is the fear of losing what we have, or what is within our power to possess, to another. Using the word strictly within the confines of its definition would relegate its application almost entirely to interpersonal relationships. Envy, on the other hand, is a two-party relation consisting only of the subject and the rival. This distress is an irrational contraction on the part of the subject toward the rival. At its core it is the belief that one is inadequate in comparison to another. It is a self-applied judgement. While it could certainly be argued that jealousy has as many roots in distress as it does in fear, it is quite clear that envy is not fear-based as the subject stands to lose nothing to the rival because they do not possess the object in question. It is an irrationality arising solely from comparison. We may say “I’m jealous of my neighbor’s car” but in reality, unless he somehow outcompeted you for it, we are envious rather than jealous as we never were in a position to possess that particular car in the first place.

So we see manifestations of envy everywhere and indeed deal with our own irrational envious impulses hundreds of times daily. Some psychologists differentiate ‘good envy’ (I want my neighbors car so I’ll emulate my neighbors actions in order to obtain one of my own) from ‘bad envy’(I want his specific car or, short of that, I don’t want him to have it). I reject the notion of ‘good envy’ on the grounds that aspiration and emulation are perfectly consistent with rational self-interest and it does not seek to deprive the rival of anything. It is a concept in need of a term of its own. Envy, as I see it, is entirely negative and harmful. It is the irrational impulse to deprive someone else of something they have to thus alleviate one’s own sense of inferiority.

A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot. Ps 14:30

I think the analogy of envy as rot is accurate. Once the irrational belief that another needs to be deprived to satisfy our own insecurity manifests itself, it becomes all-consuming, spawning all kinds of other soul-destroying passions. As Walker Percy said, “it consumes and twists our logic until nothing but itself makes sense.” In an attempt to rationalize our irrational passion we must justify our base desire to deprive others in order to feel adequate. We must convince ourselves that the rival somehow deprived us of what is rightfully ours. From this twisted logic we see all the other negative passions grow from the seed of envy; hatred, enmity, greed, anger, malice, vexation, depression, sadness, despondency, and on and on…

Eric Hoffer identified in his seminal work True Believer who is most susceptible to the ravages of envy;

“The weak are not a noble breed. Their sublime deeds of faith, daring, and self-sacrifice usually spring from questionable motives. The weak hate not wickedness but weakness; and one instance of their hatred of weakness is hatred of self. All the passionate pursuits of the weak are in some degree a striving to escape, blur, or disguise an unwanted self.”

Those consumed by envy have somewhere buried deep in their psyche a profound sense of inadequacy. Rather than aspiring to gain through emulation those things they do not possess, whether they be material, relational or moral, they seek to climb above their station on the backs of others, or at the very least drag them down into the mire with them. This sense of inferiority is so profound that the subject must alter their world-view to satisfy it. Sadly these altered world-views have given rise to ideologies which give shelter and comfort to the envious (I’m looking at you Karl Marx).

Again I’ll quote Hoffer;

“A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”

So we see myriad praises and excuses for envy dressed up in intellectual and garrulous finery. The subject is constantly reassured that their sense of inadequacy is natural, if not righteous. The moral obligation to combat their own passions is instead transferred to the rival who must be made to pay for their perceived superiority. Put even more simply, the rival is now responsible for the way the subject feels. The implications are terrifying when you couple a doctrine of envy with collectivism. The only acceptable outcome for the collective envious subjects is to see their collective superior rivals brought low and punished for the self-hatred the subject feels. Debasement or annihilation are the only thing that can satisfy the irrational contraction that spawned the ideology.

So what is to be done?

In regard to social-political movements, I have no idea. Envy is a part of the human condition and will rear its ugly head wherever human action transpires. I have little power to change anything other than myself.

I refer once again to the first part of the Psalm above;

“A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot.” Ps 14:30

We cannot control what is in the heart of others, only what is in our own. I believe this concept is one shared by any worthwhile religion or philosophy. We subdue our passions through logic and morality. We recognize that the inadequacy we feel relative to the rival’s superiority is a logical fallacy. One can only aspire to be the ideal version of themselves and cannot possess the personage of another. We must recognize that envy is a purely destructive force and the first to be destroyed by it is the envious. Beyond logic, we have a moral duty to recognize that envy seeks to justify violations of the natural rights of others:

For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. James 3:16

If the source of envy is not recognized for what it is, we find ourselves going down the primrose path from envy to resentment, resentment to hostility and from hostility to action. The end result of unchecked envy is the violation of first principles if not the outright abandonment of them.

In my opinion, the opposite of envy is gratitude. This is no profound revelation yet the application is a constant challenge. When one takes stock of the blessings in their life and values them in the right order, contentedness takes the place of envy.

I write these articles to be instructed more so than to instruct, so perhaps some of you fine Glibs can propose how we might organize (or disorganize) society to combat collective envy?

“Don’t set your mind on things you don’t possess…but count the blessings you actually possess and think how much you would desire them if they weren’t already yours.” –Marcus Aurelius

December 27, 2018
I SAID WE’LL DO IT LIVE

By ron7344

By the way: A 2-outlet faceplate runs you about $2, cowboy.

I like beer. For better or worse, this has been a mantra that I lived by from the age of 18-present day 47. I can’t drink like I used to, but I still really enjoy drinking beer. My wife has never had a problem with the beer drinking, because it was (mostly) on the weekends and I never changed my personality while I was drunk so it almost never caused me any problems. The following story is one of the times it did, but it turned into a positive thing in the long run.

In December of 1990 I was a 19-year-old Lance Corporal and had been stationed on Okinawa for 8 months. On a Wednesday, I ran into my drinking buddy from Fort Sill, Pete. He had just gotten to the island on a six-month deployment. We had to go drinking that night even though I had to be up at 4:30 for a machine gun shoot Thursday morning. It started as “I’ll just have a few beers and be back by midnight so I can get 4 hours of sleep.” (It was so great to be young.) We went bar hopping and somehow wound up at the Sunabe Seawall at around 11:30.

I met this pretty Okinawan girl, she was 22 and we REALLY hit it off. She and her friend had just watched the movie Ghost and came to the seawall for a little bit before they went home. Next thing I knew it was 2:00. Man, WE HAVE TO GO!! The girl is nice enough to drive us to the front gate, but as I get out of her car I realize my wallet is missing because the bottom of my pocket was ripped. She took me back and we found it, but instead of coming back we sat and talked for another couple of hours (not getting any sleep anyway at this point). She drives me back and I get to my room as reveille was sounded at 4:30.

I shaved and got into my cammies and still had 45 minutes before formation, so I had the fatal thought “I can take a nap” figuring that I would hear when everyone went down for formation. To quote Charlie Murphy, “WRONG!!”. To make matters worse, my section Chief and the A chief were in school so nobody noticed I wasn’t at formation.

I woke up at noon.

Not sure what to do, I started helping the rear party with cleaning the barracks in preparation for our weekly cleaning (field day) and was terrified when I heard the 5 tons come back, but trying to be slick, I went down and started cleaning the .50 cals, MK 19’s, and M60’s. Suddenly I hear my Platoon Sergeant yelling for me to get my stupid ass in his office NOW.

“WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU?!?!?!”

What to say? I suck at lying and I think I’m in enough trouble without adding to it so I didn’t know what to say except to tell him exactly what happened and why. No excuses, just the truth.

“Talked? I’m not even mad. I’m dissapointed.”

He shook his head and told me to go back out. I thought my career was over, I would never get promoted and maybe kicked out. He never said another word about it, but for at least six months, every time there was a shit detail he would look over the formation and when he saw me he would do a double take, yell my name, say “Holy Shit, you’re here. Thanks for volunteering.” Much guard duty was stood, and many hours were spent picking up trash and brass.

The positive thing to come out of that night: the girl I met has been married to me for 24 years now.

Now for reviews of my BIF from L0b0t:

Black Duck Porter by Greenport Harbor Brewing Company 4.7% ABV: Excellent example of a high quality Porter. Nothing extra, just right. 4.25/5

Common Sense Kentucky Style Ale by Upstate Brewing Company 5.3% ABV: Very easy to drink reddish ale. Good taste of hops, but not too strong. 4/5

Hawaiian Pizza IPA by Rockaway Brewing Company 5.9% ABV: I was skeptical about this one, but there was a pineapple beer in my last BIF package that was enjoyable, so let’s see.

Is this grapefruit juice? One swallow and I’m done (TWSS) 1/5
I give it to my wife (not a beer drinker) and she tastes it says “I can drink it, but it doesn’t taste like beer” She gives it 2/5

…FILLS HIS VICTIMS FULL OF DREAD

Heavy Boots of Lead by Single Cut Beersmiths 11.2%ABV: Pours like motor oil out of my Cummins BLACK and THICK. Even the foam is dark. Can’t see a light through it.

Tastes like an imperial stout, but there is a lot more to the flavor. Very thick and heavy but in a good way, hard to explain. I would never guess this was 11.2 %. I like it a lot and wish I could find this around here. 4.5/5

High Ryse by Iconyc Brewing Company 7.5% ABV: Very smooth Saison beer. Not my favorite type of beer, but it definitely got better as it went down, really liked it by the end. 3.75/5

First drink and I think” this is the perfect beer” almost reminds me of Double Bastard, one of my all-time favorites. 12%, but it goes down way too easily. I love this beer, my next trip to NY I will definitely be looking for this and the High Ryse. 4.75/5

Super Kitty by Keegan Ales 12% ABV: Bottle has a pop top like Grolsch, and it’s wax sealed. Excellent red color and nice “beer” smell. My wife smells it and recoils in horror.

Thanks again Nephilium for coordinating all this and also thank you l0b0t for the excellent beers.

December 22, 2018
They decorated my cube….

About a week ago it finally happened. People in my office began to celebrate the holidays. First it was the fake, pre-lit tree they couldn’t assemble, and the one person in the office that knew I used to be an electrician ran me down as I walked in. So I assembled it. More irritating was they decorated my cube with a poinsettia.

This is my review of Ridgeway Brewing Bad Elf Winter Ale

But first! I thought I called last call for BIF. Apparently, that is meaningless like most of the rules here. The problem is, this last one is something I should probably put on it own, so I’ll put it on its own later, because it’s a good story. Thats right, f*** it. We’ll do it live.

The plant in question hasn’t always been a staple around the holidays. It smells pretty neutral, doesn’t really need a lot of watering. Its just got red and green leaves, but there’s more to the Poinsettia. Much, much more.

The plant itself is indigenous to Southern Mexico and was originally cultivated by the Aztecs to make a dyes. Later the plant’s sap was discovered to make latex. That’s right—Mexicans gave you the material to make condoms, rubber bands, and a slew of other stretchy things. Let thet soak in for a second.

If not for the efforts of Joel Poinsett, Americans may not know or care for the plant at all. Poinsett was the first Ambassador to Mexico and appointed by James Madison. He had a thing for botany, which given the absurd number of people that grow vegetables to decompress from the modern world, doesn’t sound all that unusual. He happened to like the plant and sent several back to his home in South Carolina.

Why is it associated with Christmas? Here’s why:

Pepita, a poor Mexican girl who had no gift to present the Christ Child at Christmas Eve Services. As Pepita walked slowly to the chapel with her cousin Pedro, her heart was filled with sadness rather than joy. I am sure, Pepita, that even the most humble gift, if given in love, will be acceptable in His eyes,” said Pedro consolingly.

Not knowing what else to do, Pepita knelt by the roadside and gathered a handful of common weeds, fashioning them into a small bouquet. Looking at the scraggly bunch of weeds, she felt more saddened and embarrassed than ever by the humbleness of her offering. She fought back a tear as she entered the small village chapel.

As she approached the altar, she remembered Pedro’s kind words: “Even the most humble gift, if given in love, will be acceptable in His eyes.” She felt her spirit lift as she knelt to lay the bouquet at the foot of the nativity scene. Suddenly, the bouquet of weeds burst into blooms of brilliant red, and all who saw them were certain that they had witnessed a Christmas miracle right before their eyes.

From that day on, the bright red flowers were known as the Flores de Noche Buena, or Flowers of the Holy Night, for they bloomed each year during the Christmas season and thus, the legend of the poinsettia was born.

Its a miracle! In 1851, Congress would later declare December 12 to be National Poinsettia Day. Why do that? Turns out Poinsett was a pretty big deal. He only helped found the Smithsonian.

This beer isn’t too bad. Its a traditional English ale, with a bit of spiciness as a twist. Not a bad combo but ultimately left me searching for that hated bananna flavored residue from the yeast they use over there. Eventually I found it. Ridgeway Brewing Bad Elf Winter Ale 3.0/5

December 15, 2018
Autumn BIF: Last Call

By Nephilium

So, I’ve run a couple of these BIF’s, and here’s the shipment that I received in the most recent one:

A nice new nonic glass, and several new to me beers.

Let’s start with one I’ve had before, but still enjoy. Southern Tier Harvest Ale: Nice citrus hop aroma, with an undertone of tannin. Very pale, small head, and moderate carbonation in the appearance of the beer itself. But the flavor is there, sharp crisp hop tastes slowly fading away. I really wish this was available year round. 3.8/5

Moving on to another one that had a great old ((ad)) campaign, formerly known as just He’Brew Messiah: Sweeter aroma then the ones I usually go for, a slight hint of hops hiding behind a caramel/nutty aroma. Pours a dark reddish-brown, with a fluffy white head. Yep, there’s the nutty notes, and just a wisp of hops lurking behind it. A drinkable beer, but not one I’ll be going for again. 3/5

On to the new to me beers. Saranac 1888 Oktoberfest: Pours a clear golden-copper with a full white head. Aroma is a touch of caramel and biscuit, with some earthy notes. Flavor is not as sweet as some Marzens, with just a kiss of caramel. There’s some earthy and spice notes from the hops in the finish. 3.68/5

Orbital Tilt: Vic Secret: Big bright citrus hop aroma, with some mango underneath. Pours a nearly opaque orange with a dusting of white head. A touch of caramel sweetness starts off the beer, which then rolls into pine, pith, grapefruit, and a touch of sweet mango. This fades away leaving a long lingering bitter finish. Rich mouthfeel, with just enough carbonation to keep it from getting cloying. 4.24/5 One of my favorite from the batch.

Light crisp aroma, with a touch of noble earthy hops. Pours a mostly clear pale straw with a quickly fading white head. There’s a touch of malt sweetness, which fades to a mild earthy bitter finish. A light body, and nice carbonation keeps this an easy drinking pils. 3.67/5

Brown’s Oatmeal Stout: Pours a clear dark ruby with a dusting of light tan head. Rich roasty aroma, with a touch of coffee in the end. Slick mouthfeel, with a fullness from the oats. Starts with a slight note of milk chocolate, which fades to roast, with a touch of acrid notes in the finish. Not enough to be overpowering, but enough to be noticed. Overall, a solid Oatmeal Stout. 3.62/5

I hope you all have enjoyed hearing us geek out about beers, and feel free to jump into the next BIF (currently scheduled for late April/early May, unless someone else wants to run one… hint hint).

By DEG (who Kinnath shipped to):

Thanks to Kinnath for sending some good beers. My ratings are simple:

“Would” for “Would Drink Again” and “Would Not” for “Would Not Drink Again”.

Oja from Iowa Brewing – An excellent Baltic Porter. Rating: Would.

Oktobot 3000 from Lion Bridge Brewing – Lion Bridge aged this Märzen in Water of Life barrels. The Water of Life overwhelmed the Märzen. Rating: Would Not.

CoCo Stout from West O Beer – A Milk Stout with Chocolate. Quite tasty, and not enough lactose to send me running to the toilet. Rating: Would, but only in small quantities.

Oktoberfest from Confluence – The only problem with this beer is I didn’t have enough to fill a Maß. It is competitive with some Märzens I had at the Wiesn. Rating: Would.

G. G. from Exile – A dunkel lager. It was flat, but still rather tasty. Rating: Would Not unless they fixed the carbonation.

Compensation from Lion Bridge – An English Mild. It had a nice roasted, malty character. Rating: Would.

Not DEG’s photo

Tragedy of the Common from Iowa Brewing – Beeradvocate shows it as a California Steam Beer but the label says it is an Amber Lager. The name made me laugh at a time I needed it. I just got home from traveling for a funeral, and my BIF box was waiting for me when I got back. I saw this bottle’s label and laughed. Rating: Would.

My favorite? It’s a threesome – Oja from Iowa Brewing, Compensation from Lion Bridge, and Oktoberfest from Confluence.

December 8, 2018
Trashy Tries Philosophy Pt. 1: Is this really it?

As always, when it comes to philosophy and theology, I like to start with a disclaimer that I’m not the most well-read on these topics, so I may stumble onto other people’s ideas without attribution. I may use terms that already exist, but in different ways. Also, I may stumble into traps with just as much lack of awareness. I’m intentionally vague in some areas because I don’t want to be liable for knowing the ins and outs of certain philosophies that I only know superficially.

When thinking about this specific topic, I was reminded of the beginning of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. His book has definitely influenced this article.

I’m a big picture guy. I don’t like the feeling when I have a glimpse of a portion of the system, but don’t have an understanding of the system as a whole. This has worked both in my benefit and to my detriment in life. Math class was really hard when the teacher didn’t explain why the math worked, but only how the math worked. My learning curve as a software engineer was all that much steeper as I worked through all of the previously built functions of our product to learn how they worked rather than just trust that they’d do what their name implied. However, once I got over the hump, I was better at my job than my peers. My need to understand the big picture has been quite helpful in law… except where my manager needs me to just do things without understanding why.

This need for systemic understanding also asserts itself in my political, philosophical, and theological life (I don’t consider those to be three separate areas, but three expressions of one area of my life… my worldview). You all may recognize some of the consequences of my need for systemic understanding. For example, I don’t find pragmatism very interesting or important. How things are accomplished don’t matter as much to me as whether things should be accomplished. Once I have settled on policy X being good*, and movement in the direction of X is good and any movement away from X is bad.

* I’m using good and bad in the colloquial form. Below, as we get into the meat of this article, I’ll be using good and bad in a much more measured and intentional way.

Is This Really It?

The most basic philosophical question that I find interesting is “Is this really it?”, or , rephrased and reversed “Is there anything beyond the scientifically observable universe?” David Hume and Immanuel Kant, among others, basically said no. Most other well known schools of philosophers said yes, while building up a variety of different metaphysical constructs. We’ll come back to those constructs later, but let’s dwell on the question a bit longer and see if we can derive any practical applicability out of it. What does it mean for you and I if there is nothing beyond what can be observed and what can be reasoned?

Well, it can be used to build a foundation for morality. Let’s define a few terms to start. Morality, for the purposes of this article, is the framework used to determine whether a certain action/inaction is good or bad. Good is something that conforms to a certain moral framework. Bad is something that does not conform to a certain moral framework. Amoral is something that exists outside of the moral framework (choosing a color of socks to wear today, for example). Morality can usually be distilled into a set of first principles (i.e. foundational principles), which, in applied form, creates a worldview.

So, what does the absences of metaphysics mean for morality? Well, there seem to be three ways you can go: 1) nihilism – there is no morality; 2) normative morality – morality is baed on what is observed, felt, and intuited; 3) reasoned morality – morality is based on what is reasoned. For reasons I’ll expand on below, I believe that the first option is the only consistent moral framework in the total absence of metaphysics.

Let’s start with the second option, normative morality. My general impression is that most normative frameworks are light on foundation and heavy on post hoc rationalization of really shitty behavior. Setting that aside for the moment, let’s figure out what normative morality is. Generally, it’s a genre of philosophies that use subjective or objective observations of reality to set the basis for their moral framework. This comes in many flavors, such as Greek hedonism (whatever feels pleasant is good), relativistic postmodernism (good is based on lived experience), and utilitarianism (good is based on maximization of well-being). The first thing that strikes me about these “internal” philosophies is that they’re all fuzzy. They’re all based on a state of mind. While all of these philosophers would be on solid ground by starting every sentence with “I feel that . . . “, those who apply these philosophies make a fatal mistake when they expand the feelings of one onto all of humanity. The assumed egalitarianism is problematic. Taking hedonism as an example, what feels pleasurable to me may feel unpleasurable to you. As a trivial example, you may love the feeling of skydiving, and I may hate it. Is skydiving good or bad? The best we can say is that skydiving is good for you and bad for me in a hedonistic context. However, have we done anything by saying that skydiving is good for you and bad for me? Not really. We’re simply adding a layer of abstraction to the already assumed premise that skydiving feels good for you and feels bad for me.

What happens when add the complication of an action having impact on more than one person? Rape feels good to STEVE SMITH, but feels bad to his victim. Now we’re at an impasse. We can add in concepts like lived experience (postmodernism) to attempt to bolster the victim’s position in this standoff. We can even try to quantify good and bad (utilitarianism) in a way that STEVE SMITH only feels marginally better and the victim feels massively worse, but the problem still remains. At some point, where one group’s good feelings are directly connected to the bad feelings of another group, the first group’s infliction of bad feelings on the second group is a good as long as there are enough of the first group and few enough of the second group. A rapesquatch village can have their way with a single victim until the victim is tortured to death because the intensely bad feeling of being raped to death by a roving gang of horny cryptids is outweighed by the marginally good feeling that a rapesquatch feels multiplied by the number of rapesquatches that partake, whether that be 10, 100, 1000, or 10 million.

Finally, these normative philosophies give an overvalued weight to the subjective feelings and observations of a person. It doesn’t take much navel gazing to realize that there are people who feel and observe things that are not valid. Some of this is due to lack of information, such as when you get mad at the wrong person when you see that somebody took a bite out of your pumpkin pie while you were in the bathroom. Some is because your perceptions can be biased by your preconceptions, such as how every single hurricane is because of climate change these days. At the very least, it should be said that feelings and subjective observations have limited applicability outside of the person who has those feelings and subjective observations. What about the next person who has contradictory feelings and observations? Do they have a contradictory morality? What if a person’s feelings and observations change? Does their morality change? There’s nothing weightier here than one person’s whims. What we’re describing is a set of preferences and tastes, with the commensurate weight. “Good” and “bad” are nothing more than labels, like “fashionable” and “tacky”. Cutting through the rhetoric, I’m attempting to expose the fact that these internal-based moralities aren’t really moralities at all. They’re rationalizations for preference and taste built on the empty foundation of nihilism.

All moralities under the normative umbrella suffer from the “is/should” problem (this is why I called them “normative moralities”). Just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean that it should be that certain way. Ignoring the subjective aspects of the observer, empirical evidence doesn’t teach any moral or ethical principles. To derive such principles, one has to apply intuition, insight, or reason to the evidence. Now we’re falling into the same issue, these “external” moralities are really just “internal” moralities based more heavily on sensory input than on states of mind. While these sensory inputs are more strongly anchored in an objective reality than the observer’s whims, the influence of those whims are merely reduced, rather than eliminated. In essence, we have a set of preferences and tastes with the added weight of a relationship with evidence derived from the objective reality. It’s hard to get less abstract than this, because there are so many different forms of this type of philosophy out there. Utilitarianism often falls into this category. However, this is where the “is/should” problem comes in. How much more ethical weight does this evidence provide? Just because animals fight to the death doesn’t mean that murder is good. Somebody with the presupposition that nature is good would say that the fact that animals fight to the death means that murder is good. Somebody with the presupposition that nature is evil would say that the fact that animals fight to the death means that murder is bad. If we enter the analysis without presupposing the morality of nature, then the fact that animals fight to the death has zero bearing on the morality of murder. This is the crux of the “is/should” problem. The only time that evidence of a practice or condition in objective reality can be used in favor of the morality of the practice or condition is when you presuppose that nature is moral, which is . . . metaphysics! Observational moralities have to be built on a metaphysical foundation in order to be coherent.

This leads directly into reasoned moralities. Reasoned moralities, despite being vaunted due to the application of reason, are also normative moralities, with all the same faults and flaws. Reason is really good at applying an existing moral framework. “If A then B” works really good at proving B if A is presupposed, but just like before, you have to presuppose something in order for reason to be applied. In parallel to above, if reason can be used in favor of the morality of B when you presuppose A, the presupposition of A is . . . metaphysics! Without some sort of supernatural principle/framework/entity/etc that supports A, your reasoned morality is built on the same nihilism as the other forms of normative moralities.

Another way to view the inherent shortcomings in these normative moralities is to view them through the lens of authority. Why should I conform to your morality? Why should you conform to your morality? If the answer, when you get to the foundation, is “because it makes me feel good”, then morality is nothing more than etiquette or preference. This is true whether the morality is a simple hedonism, or whether it is couched in much more complexity, such as Darwinist morality (good is to evolve). To attribute any more weight to good feelings than mere preference or taste is an exercise in indulging one’s ego.

To finish out this first edition of trashy’s sophomoric blatherings, I’ll address nihilism. Nihilism, in my opinion, is one of two self-consistent moral frameworks. The other is moral absolutism based on divine natural law. We’ll obviously dive into more detail on that later. However, nihilism also has some weaknesses. One is that most humans seem to have some sort of moral compass/conscience, and the conscience is essential to their being. People who override their conscience tend to accumulate undesirable consequences in their lives. Sure, much of that may be explained by the “morality as etiquette” model (socially, poor etiquette results in negative social consequences). However, there’s something profoundly disturbing to most humans about living in a world where there is no right and no wrong, and where nothing means anything. People stare into the abyss and become profoundly afraid. I don’t think I’ve met a single person who has been able to retain a truly nihilist view for a significant period of time. Usually, their nihilism evolves into a squishy moral relativism or into existentialism.

Clearly, if we are to reject all metaphysics as a moral foundation, we’re choosing to dive headfirst into the abyss. That may be a satisfactory answer for a select few, but the next article will address the alternative, the various metaphysical constructs that can serve as a foundation for morality.

December 6, 2018
R C Dean Gets BIFfed

Lackadaisical (PBUH) sent me a nice selection of upstate NY beers.

For some reason, the arrival of the BIF box got me thinking about something that has struck me as an odd inversion. It used to be that beer was the cheap/economical way to get your booze on (and it still can be, if you stick with mass market beers), but given the price for craft beers (which is still a little shocking to someone who started drinking beer back when the only thing on the shelf was cheap crap), I have been laboring under the perception that they are actually as or more expensive than cocktails.

However, I was moved to do the math. A six-pack of good craft beer costs me between $10 – 12.00, call it $1.75 a bottle. A bottle of beer has between .75 and 1.0 oz. of alcohol, so to be we’ll say craft beer delivers alcohol at @ $2.00 per ounce. Your typical fifth of booze is 80 proof, and so it has 10.25 oz. of alcohol. Now, there is crazy variability in booze prices, so we’ll take Bulleit Rye as our standard, which costs me $21.00 for a fifth, or . . . $2.05 per oz. of alcohol (before mixers).

Bottom line: there’s so much variability in price per oz. for both beer and booze that its hard to give a general rule, but the craft beer market (although it seems pricey to this old-timer) actually is pretty much equivalent per oz. to cocktails, maybe a little cheaper. I would say craft beer and cocktails both deliver the goods within about the same (broad) range.

I’m not the most critical beer drinker, and tend in general to enjoy pretty much whatever is in front of me at the time. With that in mind, my impressions:

Rohrbach Scotch Ale: Either this one or the Asylum Porter were my favorites. This is an excellent example of Scotch Ale, one of my preferred types of beer. Decently full bodied, nice caramel malt flavor with some roast, and the hops were behaving themselves and being good team players.

42 North Asylum Porter: Very interesting beer, probably more depth and more flavors around the edges than the Scotch Ale. I got a little bitter chocolate and maybe coffer, and just enough smoke, but not so much that it was getting into the stout range. The kind of beer that you keep working because you want to chase some of the flavors.

Rohrbach Patty’s Irish Ale: A good Irish Ale – very comparable to their Scotch Ale, not quite as much body, and a hair less roasted flavors, a little drier on the finish. No complaints, would drink again.

Genesee Octoberfest: Genesee in general takes me back to my college days, and this is a competent, if not too exciting, beer. Adequately malty, if not quite as much body as I might like. Decent flavor. I would say this is an excellent beer to take to a tailgating party to class it up a little, and not go broke when your friends (and their friends) go through your cooler like a Mongol horde.

Big Ditch Hayburner: An IPA, but not hop soup. I can tolerate a legit IPA, so long as the brewer hasn’t decided that adding hops is somehow going to compensate for certain . . . personal shortcomings. This is a good example of the breed – decent body, hops definitely there but a little more on the floral side (which I prefer) rather than tastebud-killing bitterness.

Big Ditch Low Bridge: Interesting beer – a golden ale (whatever that is). Kinda-to-pretty hoppy; in a blind test I would have likely said this was a pale ale of some kind, but maybe a little maltier than I expect from a pale ale. It went right down, I’ll tell you that. A good beer for moderately spicy food. May get the nod over the Genesee for a good session beer, depending on how you like the hopping.

Not a dud in the bunch. I would not be sorry to discover any of these in my fridge. Thanks, Lack (and Nephilium)! Will BIF again.

December 1, 2018
Fall BIF Review 2018: Lacky Reviews RobC

I get to review the offerings from RobC, whose avatar is a beer, so you know it is going to be good. Lots of stuff from Cincy and Kentucky, that I’ve never tried so this should be fun.

The Culprit

Rhinegeist: Puma Pilsner (40 IBU, 5.2% ABV, Cincinnati, OH)
An… interesting can, this pils reminded me more of an IPA than not. Floral notes and a bit too much ‘striking noble hops’ left me a bit bitter at only 40 IBUs. 1.9/5

West Sixth Brewing: Pay it forward Cocoa Porter (?? IBU, 6.0% ABV, Kentucky)
This was a lot tastier. The chocolate was very noticeable, but in a good way. Nothing truly special about this beer, but I would drink this all the time if it was available around here. 3.8/5

Falls City Brewing: Streetlamp Porter (??IBU, 5.4%ABV, Louisville, Kentucky)
Rather tingly mouthfeel for a porter, and decent head when first poured (how’s that for a euphemism?) Very rich flavors, must be the molasses. Could be great if it had a more heavy mouthfeel (I like the feeling that I’m eating bread), though this is easy drinking for a porter, especially at this ABV. 4.2/5

Country Boy Brewing: Cougar Bait American Blonde Ale (?? IBU, 4.9% ABV, Georgetown Kentucky)
Wasn’t very impressed with this offering, I think it may just be a limitation of the style, it isn’t offensive at all, but just doesn’t do it for me. 2.5/5

Against the Grain: 35K Stout (?? IBU, 7.0% ABV, Louisville Kentucky)
Weirdest can art ever. Delicious, I got a little buzzed on this one, I don’t have a great recollection of the exact qualities that made it enjoyable, it just was. 4.5/5

Kentucky Bourbon Barrel Ale (?? IBU, 8.19% ABV, Lexington Kentucky)
First impression: ‘I knew I shouldn’t have opened this one up. I’m sure it is expensive and probably tastes great to someone who loves bourbon. I hated it. I had that little shutter when you take your first shot of the night, barrel aged ales just don’t do it for me, unless the liquor taste is very subdued. This isn’t.’
Somehow by the time I took the second sip I found it was quite tolerable, and ended up enjoying it. I still suspect it was wasted on me. 3.0/5

RobC also sent a couple glasses and a hat! Sadly, one glass didn’t make it, but the important stuff (the beer) made it here just fine. Thanks to Rob for giving me a chance to try all sorts of beer from his region.

December 1, 2018