Somehow, with imminent totalitarianism and the survival of the United States and the fate of the world at stake for the next 1000 years, or my own financial survival in the more near-term (I'm out of work almost a year now and facing foreclosure) I can't get too worked up about whether Peikoff was pissed off by a book review by McCaskey, or Tracinski was pissed off because Binswanger wouldn't print his email, or pick your insignificant difference of opinion that anyone of genuine self-esteem would shrug off.
There are things to criticize about Peikoff's behavior, which was childish and boorish, and things to criticize about Harriman's thesis, but at least as much to criticize in Tracinski's overblown characterization of this "crisis" (or his too often flawed analysis of politics or history or philosophy). For one, he revels too much in it as a crisis, and is clearly delighted that he's had an opportunity to vent after years of holding back. Shades of David Kelley.
For myself, it's all got a mild entertainment value, but I've got much bigger fish to fry. I stay focused on fundamentals and my most important objectives, and I'll use anyone who advances that end, so long as their flaws don't get too much in the way.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Sum of All Tears
My first, last and only post on the Peikoff/McCaskey/ARI/Tracinski "crisis", with no background for anyone who doesn't know it, cause really, you don't want to if you have any kind of life at all. As I told some friends: