Why You Throw Like a Girl is both Wrong and Right

Throw like a Girl

I was watching a Reality Television show called Southern Charm when Chelsea Meissner erupted at a male cast member who was having a meltdown. She said something along the lines of check your pants for a vagina and I’ve got a bigger penis than you. Meissner, as you might imagine, has more than a bit of There’s Something About Mary in her. In any case, it got me thinking.

Meissner did not intend to denigrate women but the phrases she used most certainly did. On the baseball diamond it was not unheard of to say, and I’m as guilty as anyone: You throw like a girl. What is meant is not that girls throw badly but the person in question is not good at throwing. The reality is it insults women and makes negative assumptions about their throwing ability.

In the same way Meissner was subtly, although I’m sure unconsciously, suggesting men are better adults than women. Her point was the male cast member was throwing a temper tantrum like a small child and that he couldn’t handle even the slightest bit of adversity without falling apart. This was absolutely true. She was accurate in her assessment but the phrase she used is clearly denigrating toward women in general. That’s the problem.

We have a culture of terminologies that make clearly false gender assumptions, particularly in this modern day and age when women, in progressive countries at least, are finally being given all the same opportunities as men and proving, over and over again, they are equally capable.

What’s to be done about it? I think it’s important to come up with new phrases that will, hopefully, slowly enter the culture. We can easily find ways to make our point without insulting one gender or the other. Instead of you throw like a girl we can simply say you don’t throw well. If we want a bit of color, I’m sure there are ways to make the phrases both appealing and gender neutral. You throw like a penguin perhaps. I’m sure someone else can do better.

It’s got to be a conscious effort. I have to stop complimenting a person’s boldness by tying it to the size of her or his testicles, non-existent though they may be. You have to do the same. It takes time, these changes, but it can be done with a concerted and honest effort. When you say something that denigrates a gender unfairly, you are setting an example. Try to be better, I am.

Tom Liberman

State of Missouri Enforces Start Date for School

School Start Date

My home state of Missouri just voted in a new law that forces local school districts to start their year no earlier than fourteen days before the first Monday of September. The basic idea is to extend the summer vacation so families will spend more on tourism. Here’s the problem. It should be up to the school district and their duly elected board to make that decision. If school board members want to have year-round education, that’s their business and they are accountable to the voters in their region.

It’s interesting, although unsurprising, to note that Missouri is dominated by small government Republican politicians and governor Mike Parson is part and parcel of that group. Their excuse, as usual, is it’s for the children. We want to help families spend more time together in summer. If you’ll excuse my crass language, nonsense. Someone convinced politicians an early start date cut into revenue and therefore they want to force local communities away from such.

In addition, the old rules allowed for school districts to start earlier if they gave notice and held a vote, the new rule prevents them from starting early for any reason. This is big, intrusive government in action.

This is exactly what the Constitution of the United States was designed to prevent. Those rights not given to government by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People. That’s the Tenth Amendment and its meaning is very clear to this Libertarian. Those closest to the situation must have the right to pass their own laws. A school district can start sessions on any date it desires and the board members are then held accountable by local voters.

When the state steps in to enforce their rules onto local municipalities the voters have much less say in the matter. I’m sure there are many parents angry at their State Representatives and Senators over this action but a vote against such takes on a much broader range of issues. The school board is directly responsible for the operation of the school and local voters are in the best position to affirm or reject their decisions. The further removed we become from the local, the less likely we are to get a result in line with voter desires.

Now, to be certain, this means if a school board wanted to have a one-day school year because the majority of members didn’t believe in education, I would support their right to make such a foolish decision.

The freedom to be a moron is an important freedom. The state should not, and frankly cannot, protect us from our own stupidity. The state certainly should not be making school decisions for us when the main rational for doing so is financially motivated. Which is exactly what the Republican led legislature of Missouri just did.

Tom Liberman

The Resignation of Sir Kim Darroch does No One Any Good

Sir Kim Darroch

Recently some messages from the former British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Kim Darroch, were leaked to the public and the resulting chain of events are an interesting study in diplomacy, secrecy, and foreign relations.

There are a number of problems with the events as they came to pass that may or may not have long term repercussions on the way the world’s powers deal with one another. As an ambassador it is important to report back honest assessments to your superiors. Then they can make informed decisions about the future. If an ambassador reports a rosy picture or a bleak picture that doesn’t match up with their understanding of the situation, bad decisions are the likely result.

Imagine for a moment you are about to make a major purchase. Someone you trust gives you all sorts of information but it turns out much of that is inaccurate. Maybe it was what they thought you wanted to hear, perhaps it was done at the behest of the manufacturer of the item in question, maybe the person so reporting just can’t be counted on to give an accurate assessment. The result is the same in all cases. You make a major purchase lacking truthful knowledge. Maybe it turns out to be a fine purchase but the chances it turns out to be a mistake are much higher.

That’s the problem with what just happened with Darroch. The information he sent back was his honest opinion of the situation but because it was leaked to the public, his position with the mercurial President Trump became untenable. He could no longer do his job satisfactorily.

This leads us to the results of what happened. Will the next ambassador be less likely to paint a negative picture if there is a chance her or his job is on the line? She or he might lose their salary which pays for the food on the table? This is not just about England and the United States but all ambassadors. What if an ambassador for the United States was removed from her or his position in a volatile region and replaced with someone who, out of fear of losing her or his job, reported nothing but good news? I think you can see how this adversely affects our nation.

We live in an age where information like that revealed in the Darroch situation is more and more likely to be released. Such situations are increasingly common which, it seems to me, have a chilling impact on the ability of nations to accurately understand each other and make proper political and strategic decisions.

What’s to be done about it? No easy answers to that one, at least not from me. Once something like that is released, it cannot be easily ignored. Even if Darroch stayed in his position it is likely those who dealt with him on a regular basis would change their behavior to account for his assessments. Certainly, President Trump is a childish and vindictive man but so too are other world leaders.

The idea the world would be a better place if we were all completely open and honest with one another is utter nonsense. Some things need to be left unsaid to the person’s face in order to get along. It is in all our best interest if nations get along well with one another. The world is a better place when men like Darroch are allowed to do their difficult jobs and make their reports in secret.

My final conclusion? It’s a bad situation and I’m sorry it happened.

Tom Liberman

Wesley So and the Question of Pragmatism over Glory

Wesley So

Today was an interesting day in the chess world when Wesley So decided on a pragmatic course of action when he had an opportunity for glorious victory. It was a complicated decision with a number of factors but I thought it was the correct choice; I am interested in what other people think. Let me explain.

There is a chess event called the Grand Chess Tour in which the top players in the world compete in a series of individual tournaments. The top four point getters in all the tournaments advance to a big money final. Each of the tournaments themselves have significant prizes for finishing in the top spots. Wesley So was invited to participate even though he had a relatively subpar chess season the previous year. He is considered one of the weakest players in the event. Weak being relative, he is a fantastic chess player by any standard.

In the first stop of the tour he did reasonably well, fourth out of ten players, and is having an excellent tournament in the second stop, this is where he made his pragmatic decision.

The current stop on the Grand Chess Tour, Croatia, has more points available to get into the finals than other events because of the format. It also has a somewhat different structure than other tournaments in that the players play eleven games in twelve days with only a single rest day after the sixth game.

Wesley So is doing exceptionally well. Going into the penultimate round he was in clear second place behind only World Champion Magnus Carlsen who is playing some of the best chess of his career. He was also a full point ahead of several players who were tied for third place. In a chess game you get half a point for a draw, 1 point for a win, and 0 points for a loss.

This situation means if he drew the game against Carlsen it almost certainly guaranteed Wesley So would finish the tournament in second place. This finish would gain him significantly more money and points than finishing tied for third or worse, a distinct possibility if he lost the game against Carlsen.

Wesley So was playing with the white pieces which is considered an advantage and generally speaking the player with white is the aggressor and the player with black is trying to draw the game, although this is certainly not absolute.

I know I’ve spent considerable time setting up the question but I think it’s important that we weigh all the factors, overall Grand Chess Tour position, individual event position, general fatigue, the state of Carlsen’s play, etc.

In any case, Wesley So played a relatively passive game and quickly settled for a draw with Carlsen. This almost guaranteed him second place in the tournament and also allowed him to rest up for the final round of a tournament in which fatigue certainly plays a role.

Many people are being critical of this decision, they think he had a chance to win the tournament and he should have gone all out, even though doing so against an in-form Carlsen was extremely dangerous. Wesley So weighed the benefits of drawing against the negative potential of losing and decided the former was the wiser course of action. I happen to agree with him but I can see the other point of view.

So, what do you think?

Should Wesley So have gone for Glory or was a Pragmatic Draw the right decision?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Nike and the Patriotic Shoe Flap

Patriotic Shoe

There’s a ridiculous news story flapping in the wind that gives me a chance to wax poetic about patriotic behavior, moral relativism, and general Libertarian ideology. It centers on the Nike company pulling a shoe with an old American flag on it. So-called patriotic politicians and others are slamming Nike for doing so, Nike’s reasoning being that a Nazi group has used that same symbol for their own rallies.

It’s an interesting situation because for the greater part of the history of the United States it was considered quite unpatriotic and disrespectful to wear the American flag on clothing. When the hippies in the 1960’s starting doing so it was the very same “patriotic” politicians, who today criticize Nike, then lambasting the counter-culture individuals for their horrible behavior. This displays, in no uncertain terms, moral relativism.

Basically, the idea of putting the American flag on clothing has gone from being unpatriotic to patriotic over the course of about fifty years. It’s interesting that those who most vehemently claimed it was disrespectful and unpatriotic now equally disparage Nike for not marketing the shoe. This is moral relativism. What was once immoral, or unpatriotic in this case, is now quite moral and patriotic. Wearing the American flag on your clothing is a symbol of being a patriot.

Another issue this particular flap bring to the forefront is the ideology of small government. For many years it was the mantra of the Republican party that government should not be involved in business decisions, or at least that involvement should be kept to a minimum. Meanwhile, Democrats insisted that government was necessary to curb the excesses of business leaders. Obviously, it is now Republicans threatening Nike with repercussions for their business decisions and Democrats insisting Nike should be allowed to do as they want.

For a Libertarian the answer is simple. Nike can make whatever decision they want and the governor of Arizona and the leader of the U.S. Senate are clearly big government Liberals in sheep’s clothing. Don’t like it? Reality hurts. The root problem stems from all the incentives businesses take from government in the first place which then gives said officials the feeling they have the right to tell companies how they should go about running their business. It seems simple to me, get out of it altogether. No tax breaks, no incentives, sink or swim on your business decisions.

Finally, as to the groups using the thirteen-star flag symbol to promote hatred and violence. Last I checked, this is a free country although perhaps I need to check again. They can use whatever symbol they want. Nike can market whatever shoe they want. People can wear whatever clothes they want. It’s not my business and it most certainly is not the government’s business.

Tom Liberman

Government Bans Vaping for Teens Because it is Popular

Vaping

The various states and municipalities across the country are quite busy enacting laws to ban vaping for people under the age of 21. The federal government has gotten involved as well, regulating it as if it was a tobacco product. These laws are largely being enacted because of the rise in popularity of vaping among teenagers.

Let’s be very clear about what municipalities, states, and the federal government are doing: vaping is popular and therefore we are making it a crime to do. We’re not yet willing to start yet another War on Drugs by banning it for adults but we must protect the poor, deluded and innocent children. It is our job as politicians to tell parents they can’t let their children vape. It is our job as politicians to tell nineteen and twenty-year old, legal adults, we know better for them then they do themselves.

Is vaping bad for you? The evidence is still out for non-tobacco products but the use of tobacco is clearly unhealthy as is the use of alcohol. The question becomes if it is acceptable for the various levels of government to decide for your children what they should and shouldn’t be doing in that regard.

As you might be able guess, in general I’m opposed to such bans from an ideological point of view. I’m for the legalization of all drugs but the question becomes a little bit stickier when we are talking about people not legally competent, children in this case. I’m clearly and unreservedly against laws preventing adults from knowingly and eagerly ingesting whatever substance they want, even if it is unhealthy.

The government does have some responsibility to protect children but that largely should be invoked when parents are abusive or irresponsible. It is largely a parent’s responsibility to ensure their child behaves in particular ways. When we involve law enforcement officers, we are making an enormous problem for ourselves, one that dwarfs the issue it is designed to prevent.

Imagine, fanciful as it might seem, a nineteen-year-old wants to vape and her or his parents have no problem with it. We are now making that person a criminal. Law enforcement must now arrest and steal from, that is to say fine, that person.

In addition, we are potentially legislating a business into bankruptcy with all its attendant casualties. We don’t like vaping and therefore we shall attempt to remove a category of consumers from being able to purchase and use the product. This has an enormous impact on the vendors, suppliers, retail outlets, transporters, and varied other players.

All laws are not bad but we must balance the freedom they take from us and the harm they do against the benefit they promise. In this case I see some benefit, it is certain less teens will vape if there is a law against such. I also see harm in the criminality that will be spawned and the black markets that will certainly arise to sell such products to teens. I absolutely oppose the idea nineteen and twenty-year-old women and men are unable to make informed decisions about their vaping habits.

I shouldn’t be telling them to vape or not to vape and neither should the government.

Tom Liberman

Clean Energy Revolution not Fueled by Government

Clean Energy v Coal

About ten or so years ago a friend of mine told me with absolute certainty that Clean Energy would never amount to more than two percent of the United States energy needs and that I was an idiot for saying otherwise. Well, in April 2019 clean energy accounted for a greater percentage of our energy than did coal. Bub, you were wrong and will continue to be more wrong with every passing year.

I’m not here to gloat about my clean energy predictions but to talk about how this revolution is happening not because of government but in spite of it. Various groups have long promoted solar, wind, and natural gas as better sources for energy because they don’t cause nearly the pollution as generated by coal. To hasten this transition of energy away from coal, such people advocated massive government encouragement, read tax breaks and subsidies, to the purveyors of clean energy. I argued that instead of subsidizing clean energy, we should simply stop doing so for coal and oil.

President Obama and the democrats largely agreed with the sentiments expressed by the clean energy crowd. They implemented plans to help spread the use of such energy and had some successes and some failures.

Enter President Trump. He essentially has the opposite plan. He wants to encourage the use of coal and dispense with helping clean energy. He has had some successes and some failures in his plans.

The reality of the situation is quite easy to see from any graph showing production associated with coal and clean energy in the last twenty years. Coal rarely dropped below 150 gigawatt-hours of energy prior to 2010. Now they never even reach this level and it is unlikely to ever rise that high again. The trend is obvious but what is driving it?

I’m happy to tell you; capitalism completely disassociated from government. Investors, builders, and entrepreneurs have no desire to invest in coal-based plants because there is more money to be made from clean energy power plants. If you’re mining coal, working at a coal-fired plant, hauling coal on the railroad, or doing anything associated with coal; start making plans to do something else. Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually; capitalism is talking and it’s not mincing words.

The most important thing to understand is this is all good and natural, as was the rise of coal in the first place. If government just stayed out of the energy business altogether, we’d likely be much further along in this process. If you enjoy breathing air and drinking water, you should be sad we are not.

Did the Obama era clean energy policies help promote them? Certainly. Have the Trump era coal energy policies helped extend the coal era? Certainly. Neither has a chance against the true forces of capitalism. Stop subsidizing energy altogether. It’s best for all of us.

Tom Liberman

Human Trafficking and David Miscavige of the Church of Scientology

David Miscavige

There is a story breaking about a woman suing the Church of Scientology and its chairman, David Miscavige for, among other things, sex trafficking. I’m convinced this lawsuit was spurred by the conviction of NVIXM founder Keith Raniere over similar charges.

I wrote a blog back in April of 2018 about why charging Raniere and his associates with a crime for their sex cult activities was a bad idea and the subsequent conviction and this lawsuit further hardens my position. Basically, if anyone, for any reason, stays somewhere where perhaps they don’t really want to stay, they are going to be able to bring charges against whatever entity convinced them to stay.

I would guess your first reaction would be this is a good thing. No one should be convinced to stay somewhere they don’t want to stay. However, I don’t think there is an organization in the country where someone hasn’t been talked into or threatened in some way in order to make them stay. It is common behavior for a church to threaten anyone who is thinking about leaving with ostracization from the religious community. Anyone who decides to stay in the church to avoid such is now a victim of human trafficking in accordance to the way those ridiculous laws were written. The church is liable and the leaders, like Miscavige, are subject to imprisonment.

It’s not just churches, it’s virtually every voluntary organization in the world. People will always have doubts about continuing to be a member of such groups and if they are told about certain consequences should they choose to leave, it can easily be construed as a threat and thus subject to these poorly imagined laws that are on the books in virtually every state in the nation.

Don’t get me wrong, if someone is physically restrained, drugged into submission, blackmailed, or otherwise coerced into staying; there should be an investigation to see if the law was broken. That being said, the way human trafficking laws are currently written, being interpreted, and enforced, I doubt there is a single one of us who hasn’t been so victimized.

Is it possible a group of mean girls from the local junior high might be thrown in prison for threatening to refuse another girl entry into some social group if she refuses to join their clique? You may laugh but that’s where we are heading and it is why we must be so careful not to legislate morality.

If someone wants to be a sex slave, or work long hours for some nonsense religious organization like that of Miscavige; that’s their business. Not yours. Not mine. Not the governments.

Tom Liberman

Reggie Bush and the Detroit Lions Cheap Misleading Headline

Reggie Bush Misleading Headline

An article from Lions Wire, a news outlet associated with the NFL’s Detroit Lions, claims: Reggie Bush takes shot at Lions, calls them cheap. Is it true or is just typical clickbait nonsense? I’m guessing you might already know the answer because this is an article in my Misleading Headline series but I’ll go ahead and finish the job.

The story is relatively simple. There was an image displaying Bush and fellow running back Joique Bell celebrating as teammates on the Detroit Lions. Bush tweeted the image with his own comment that “And then we got cut because they wanted to go cheaper.” It’s a factually true statement. The Lions were interested in cutting payroll because of the salary cap demands in the NFL. They drafted younger players and cut both Bush and Bell.

The move didn’t work out particularly well for the Lions in that the new running backs were not nearly as productive as Bush and Bell. That is somewhat beside the point. Bush didn’t say the Lions were cheap. He said they made a football decision based on payroll. Nor do I even think it was much of a shot at the Lions.

I can’t know for sure what Bush was thinking but I imagine he saw the picture and remembered the next season he was cut from the team in a payroll savings move and commented accurately upon this fact. Maybe he is bitter about it but, in this case, I think he was merely stating a fact rather than taking a shot at anyone.

Tom Liberman

Saint Louis Blues and Soccer Players Behaving Badly

Blues

Recently, the sporting world brought us St. Louis Blues fans a Stanley Cup Championship and the soccer world in general the ongoing Women’s World Cup. A couple of incidents involving the Blues and U.S. Women’s National Team got me to thinking about bad behavior and our reaction to it.

First my hometown St. Louis Blues are up. They won the Stanley Cup for the first time in their existence and there was a large parade in downtown St. Louis with an enormous crowd. When the various dignitaries and players made their victory speeches on stage it was largely a slurring, expletive filled affair. This with a young Blues fan on the stage and many more in the audience.

Meanwhile, the USWNT won their 2019 World Cup Debut in overwhelming fashion defeating a badly overmatched Thailand team 13-0. As the score mounted so did the celebrations of the players after each goal to the point it became, as with the slurring and swearing Blues players, distasteful.

Were the Blues vile and disgusting in their words and actions? Were the USWNT players gross and unsporting in theirs? That’s the question I ask today. The answer is nuanced. The Blues won the Stanley Cup and have well-earned the right to celebrate any way they desire. The USWNT defeated an opponent by a large amount and have every right to enjoy each goal with whatever enthusiasm they want. However, I have every right to find both instances distasteful.

My opinion is mine to have and their actions are theirs to take. That’s the main point here. Some people found the celebrations to be perfectly acceptable and reasonable and they can absolutely think that way. It doesn’t change my opinion of events; no do I expect to change anyone else’s mind with my own thoughts. I think what I think.

I’m certainly open to hearing why people didn’t find the celebrations offensive. They can try to convince me all they want but they can’t tell me how to think, that’s my job. Just as I can’t tell the players how to behave on stage or on the field of play. I can’t tell you how to think, I can only present my thoughts on the subject, if you find them persuasive that’s great, if not, that’s fine also.

It’s a big person world out there and you’re not going to find everyone’s opinions or actions to your liking. Go right ahead and tell them you don’t like it but don’t expect them to change.

Yes, I found both instances unsavory. I don’t approve of the actions of the soccer players or the hockey players. That’s me.

Tom Liberman

What the Sausage and Whiskey Experts Taught Me

Sausage and Whiskey

I’ve recently watched a couple of videos of Epicurious experts trying to guess whether a particular food or beverage, sausage and whiskey, item is expensive or cheap and the passion and knowledge of the people trying to speculate struck me quite powerfully. What I noticed was they were extremely accepting of the lesser product even while praising what they thought was the more expensive.

The sausage expert and the whiskey expert were correct in their assessments each time but it was their passion that really stood out to me. Particularly when confronted with something that wasn’t to their taste, the sausage expert judging a meatless product for example.

In every single case, they were looking for good things in the products rather than dwelling on what they disliked. They were happy to recommend the lower quality product as a less expensive option for those without their own exacting standards. They were not offended by a lower quality product nor did they feel the need to denigrate it excessively to show off their expertise.

Certainly, they spoke about why one product appeared to them to be of a higher quality and went into detail about what made one potentially more expensive and better tasting than the other. They spoke about ways that distillery and sausage makers go about producing lower quality products without denigrating or insulting.

I think this is at great odds with what we see in the regularity of our life. Our televisions sets are filled with people telling us how awful is someone else or some other product. The comment sections on news stories are absolutely bursting with self-important people railing against perceived slights. I must admit to you that I’ve done the same although, having watched the Epicureans, I think I’m going to focus more on the positive in the future. That doesn’t mean to say I will ignore things that are bad or wrong, just that I will try to spend more time on what positives can be taken from the situations.

The question I must ask myself is; why am I so angry at things that have little or no affect on me? Why do I feel the need to hurl personal and nasty insults? Is this behavior more a reflection of my own shortcomings than of the offensive product or person?

Yes, a friend posted a rather stupid meme but can I point that out without being insulting? Can I productively mention why I think it’s wrong? I think I do this to some degree although I certainly have my lapses. If someone hurls an insult at me, can I shrug and understand that is more a reflection of their own issues than anything about me?

I like to think I can improve and the next time I feel the red haze rising, I’ll try to think of the sausage expert kindly and with great gentility, reviewing the meatless product.

As for you, that’s your business.

Tom Liberman

Why it is not a Good Idea to Prosecute Political Foes

Prosecute Political Foes

There is a mood among Democrats to prosecute President Trump after he leaves office for activities which they deem illegal. I want to be clear, it is a terrible idea to prosecute political foes. This very activity brought about the end of the Roman Republic and it’s quite easy to understand why.

Julius Caesar was governor of Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy), Illyricum (southeastern Europe), and Transalpine Gaul (southern France) for a term of five years. During this time, he engaged in enormous conquest and, almost certainly, illegal behavior. After his term of five years ended, he was ordered to return to Rome, ostensibly to face charges for his crimes while governor.

Without political power, Caesar was largely left with two choices. He could submit to the new government and almost certainly be imprisoned if not executed and have his money taken from him. His other option was to take dictatorial power for himself to avoid these consequences. He chose the latter. It’s difficult to blame him for doing so.

It is almost certain President Trump has committed any number of crimes while in office, he seems to think any law that thwarts his fickle mood of the moment is something to be ignored. Many of his political allies and appointments are equally cavalier with the rule of law. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if documents of his activities were obtained, they would show a penchant for illegal activity. A conviction is all but assured. Many of his allies would also end up in prison and lose their riches.

Naturally, they don’t want this to happen and would resort to whatever means required to prevent it from happening, as did Caesar. Their loyal supporters would likely behave with the same goals in mind.

How do we prevent this? Simply don’t prosecute political foes for their oft-illegal activities after they leave office. Let them go on about their way as much as you hate to see them “getting away” with criminal activity.

It seems to me to be unnecessary to remind supporters of Trump their own culpability in the current Democratic led prosecute political foes fervor but I suspect I must. The entire “Lock Her Up” movement and attempts to criminally prosecute Obama and Clinton allies is part and parcel of the reason Democrats are so riled up. In other words, look in the mirror, bitches.

We have a system in the United States which allows us to rid ourselves of politicians we don’t like. It’s called an election. Let’s focus on that.

Tom Liberman

The Perils of an Odd Sense of Humor

Odd Sense of Humor

I have an odd sense of humor. This cannot be denied. It’s likely part and parcel of my membership on the Spectrum, as we say these days. This quirk of mine once again took me into the headlights of peril when I attempted to make a joke about a meme that was superficial and failed to take into account the complexities of a difficult issue. Well, I mean, that pretty much describes all memes but back to my odd sense of humor.

The meme was about how success was like an iceberg and that you only saw the results rather than all the things that went into obtaining that success. It reminded me, with my odd sense of humor, of a Rodney Dangerfield classic called Back to School. In that movie Dangerfield plays wealthy industrialist Thornton Melon who goes back to college to inspire his underperforming son.

Stay with me, I’m getting there. The two take a business class in which the professor plans to build a factory to produce widgets. The proposal of the professor is idealistic and doesn’t take into account real world issues like corrupt politicians, unions, and the waste management industry. Melon interrupts the lecture to give a hilarious speech about these realities.

Now, back to my world. Having seen the idealistic meme about success and remembering the movie; I decided to riff a comment along similar lines. In a moment of clarity, rare to me, I recognized that, perhaps, people might not understand my odd sense of humor and even included the bit about waste management and the boy scouts figuring that such an inclusion would certainly let everyone know I was joking. Yeah, that worked.

The original poster called me cruel names, a friend came to my defense claiming I retired early, this being true, although I’m not sure how such excuses my comment, but thank you in any case, Lisa. Another friend chimed in to point out how insightful was my comment.

No one got the joke. Sigh.

The important part of all of this is that the original poster was angry and that’s his business. A friend came to my defense and that’s her business. Another friend agreed with my comment failing to recognize it as humor and that is also her decision.

I’m the one that told the, apparently not funny, joke and that’s on me. I feel no remorse for attempting the humor nor am I angry at the person for not getting the joke and calling me names. It’s all just fine. Everyone is good. Life goes on. There is no need to escalate, to blame, to return the name calling, or relish in some sense of superiority because I convince myself I’m better than others.

I’m happy with where I’m at in life, odd sense of humor and all. You be you and that’s cool also.

Tom Liberman

Why Call it an All-Star Game when Fans Vote?

All-Star Game

The title of the blog pretty much sums up my question. If we’re going to call it an All-Star Game, then why are we letting fans vote for the players? This is a situation that caught my attention even when I was a young boy while filling out All-Star Ballots at Busch Stadium for my beloved home town St. Louis Cardinals. I would vote for who I thought was the best player at each position but most of the people around me voted for all Cardinals.

It comes to my attention again because in the International League, a Triple A affiliate of Major League Baseball, an outfielder with an average of .155, 1 home run, 14 runs batted in, who is at the bottom of the league in four offensive statistics, and is also a pretty poor defensive player has a chance to make the team. His name, you won’t be surprised to learn, is Tim Tebow.

I don’t mean to pick on Tebow here. It’s certainly not his fault people are voting for him. Nor am I particularly upset at the fans who are doing so. They want to see Tebow in the All-Star game and are making their decision known. This is the same reason Paige Spiranac keeps getting invites to LPGA events. My question is that which I’ve stated already, why call it an All-Star game when it’s a popular election?

If the fans want to see Tebow and Spiranac, more power to them. There’s nothing wrong with doing it that way. The fan votes in the International League are not the final arbiter but count only as a percentage of the final decision as to whom to include. In the Major League All-Star game, the fans only choose the starters, the managers pick the rest of the lineup.

Still, the fact we call it an All-Star game bothers me. All-Star would specify the best players in the league, the stars. Anything that includes a fan vote is most likely going to be more of a popularity contest than an actual showcase of the league’s most talented players. Not to say there isn’t a great deal of overlap, just that the two are clearly not the same.

Every year older players in the twilight of their career make the team instead of their younger and statistical superior counterparts. This observation of mine is nothing earth shattering.

The Most-Popular Game doesn’t quite have the mystique of the All-Star game but has the advantage of being closer to the truth.

What do you think?

Should we call it the Most-Popular Game instead of All-Star Game?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

The President Cannot Legally Implement Tariffs

Tariffs

It is important to understand that the President of the United States absolutely, without question, does not have the power to implement tariffs without approval from Congress. This power is designated specifically to Congress by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in the Constitution is the president given any power to do so alone.

I find it amazing that congress has allowed President Trump, the first president to ever unilaterally implement tariffs, to do so. They have largely done so because they either like giving the president such power or they have completely given up on the responsibilities the Constitution grants them.

In either case, President Trump is now implementing new tariffs that business leaders across the United States, like the Chamber of Commerce, and most of Congress itself oppose. They are threatening, finally, to bring the matter to the courts where it seems impossible to me that such actions will be not be struck down as illegal. Why have they waited so long? Why do they still hesitate?

This action by the president, the past actions by the president in regards to tariffs, are clearly illegal. If the president wants to implement tariffs then said president must go to Congress and get them to pass the law through the normal process or get them to grant him the ability to do so.

The precedent set by these illegal tariffs is enormously damaging. One does not have to strain the mind at all to imagine a time when a Democratic President simply bypasses a Republican Congress by acting illegally. I’m certain Republicans would be crying foul at that point but perhaps, just maybe, yesterday is when they should have been squawking.

This willingness to support illegal policies because they come from a party for whom you vote or even because you support the political ideology of the action is baffling to this Libertarian. Cannot you see what is good for the goose is good for the gander? By allowing such illegal acts you set yourself up for future retribution?

If the Constitution of the United States is to be ignored so blatantly in one part, what is to stop a president from ignoring all of it?

Tom Liberman

Deputy Marco Lopez Fired for Running for Office Against his Boss

Marco Lopez Fired

In Osceola County, Florida, a deputy named Marco Lopez decided to run for the position of sheriff against his boss, Sheriff Russ Gibson. He was summarily fired. When I read the headline, I was rather disturbed but then I read the entire story and my agitation reached new levels. You see, what was done is mandated by law.

You read that correctly, it is illegal in Florida to run for sheriff against your current boss while maintaining position as a deputy. The reason being that it is a sign of disloyalty. What Gibson did was not only legal, but actually required by the law, although perhaps he did it several months before he was required to do so. The idea that you cannot run for political office against a superior without being fired because you are disloyal is an affront to my sensibilities.

Of course, you can run against your immediate superior for such a position. Such is done every single day in every other profession across this country of ours and the world in general. Can you imagine telling a young athlete they are not allowed to try for a starting position on the team against the established veteran? Can you imagine being told the state mandates you’re not allowed to apply for the position your boss currently holds without first being fired?

It’s ludicrous. It’s madness. Of course, you can seek a higher position while remaining fully loyal and hardworking at your current job. It goes without saying that you can do your current job with skill and dedication while seeking a better one. We should all do our best at all times, regardless of what future position we might seek.

It is only natural we seek a better job, a promotion. If we did not there would be something wrong. If I were sheriff, I’d be upset if those under me didn’t want to eventually have my job. It would show a lack of initiative and ambition if they did not.

If Lopez defeats Gibson for the job of sheriff it is because he will have run a better campaign and the people think he is better suited for the position. Competition is the backbone of capitalism, even within the government. How many times are elected officials replaced by those who were once or remain their underlings?

Now, to be clear, Florida has every right to pass whatever law they desire. If Lopez was actually disloyal or performing his job badly, then Gibson should fire Lopez. Otherwise, let the voters decide.

Tom Liberman

Twenty-One to Purchase E-Cigarettes or Tobacco Products

E-Cigarettes

Senators Mitch McConnell and Tim Kaine are co-sponsoring a bill to increase the federally mandated age for people to purchase tobacco products and e-cigarettes to 21. It has bi-partisan support and is being done to protect the children so I expect it will pass. You’ll not be surprised to find I oppose such legislation.

I could talk about how e-cigarettes are not even a tobacco product by nature or how the federal age to purchase is already 18, the age at which we become legally adults. Instead I want to focus on the idea the federal government should have no control at all over what we voluntarily put into our bodies.

I can hear you now: but, Tom, it’s to protect the poor, innocent children. The federal government must save them from the terrible scourge of tobacco. They are too young to make a decision for themselves. They will ruin their lives if the federal government doesn’t step in to save them. You can’t be against saving children? Do you want children to die? Are you a cruel, heartless, child-murdering monster?

No, I’m a Libertarian. The Constitution of the United States grants the government certain powers and they do not have any outside those as decided by the courts. The Constitution is also quite clear about who has these rights. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution declares explicitly that powers not delegated to it are for the States and the people to decide. Whether or not your child buys an e-cigarette or any form of tobacco is up to you to decide.

It seems so simple to me. If community wants to prevent a store from selling such products to people under 21, the local politicians can pass an ordinance to that effect. If they do so and the people are unhappy with that decision, they can make their opinions known in the next local election. If the state makes such a law then the municipality can counter it with a law allowing such merchants to sell e-cigarettes and tobacco products within the jurisdiction of their city.

There are specific limits to the Constitution of the United States and if the federal government is not granted the ability to pass a law in certain regards, then it falls to the States and to the people. It seems obvious to me that the entity closest in relation to the effect of the law should have precedent. This gives the greatest control to the people, where the framers largely wanted it.

Frankly, there should be no such law at all. If someone wants to purchase e-cigarettes or tobacco products it should be up to the local merchant if they want to sell them or not. If the people in a town don’t like it, their representatives can pass a law.

Another important thing to remember is that a ban on a particular product doesn’t generally have the effect of preventing people from purchasing it; it just creates a black market. Let’s imagine the federal law passes. Does anyone imagine there won’t instantly spring up a black market for 19 to 21-year-olds to purchase as many e-cigarettes or tobacco products as they want?

The only thing the law does is give power to the federal government over aspects of our lives they should not have. If we allow the federal government to tell a legal adult of 20 they can’t purchase an e-cigarette, and the state and local community has no right to override such a rule, then what power are we not granting it?

Tom Liberman

Enlightened Self-Interest and a Chateau le Pin Pomerol 2001

Chateau le Pin Pomerol 2001

There’s an interesting story making the rounds about a bottle of wine called Chateau le Pin Pomerol 2001 sold at Hawksmoor restaurant in Manchester, England. The Chateau le Pin Pomerol is a rare wine; a customer ordered a $300 bottle of a similar vintage but a mistake led to said customer being served the Chateau le Pin Pomerol which lists at $5,772.

That’s a significant loss for the restaurant although the price they charge is certainly less than that listed. In response, the restaurant put out a tweet expressing hope the customer enjoyed the finer vintage. They also explained the two bottles are quite similar and an employee made an honest mistake on a crowded evening.

I think this is a good chance to explain a subtle nuance in Libertarian philosophy; which many people mistakenly think is all about earning more money, even many Libertarians themselves. It’s not about the money even though money is used as a scorekeeper to some degree.

The owners of Hawksmoor had a choice when they found out about the mistake. They could have attempted to charge the customer the difference. They could have docked the wages of the employee for the mistake. Both of these actions would seem to fit in with the perceived Libertarian philosophy of making as much money as possible.

The reality is, naturally, quite different. What is in the enlightened self-interest of the Hawksmoor? Alienating a customer or losing presumably a good employee? Certainly, the media coverage they get for accepting the mistake and wishing all parties well is worth more than the loss garnered by putting out the Chateau Le Pin Pomerol. It seems quite obvious to me their actions will not only result in more revenue in the long run, but even this is really not enlightened self-interest.

The real beneficiaries of this acceptance of the mistake are not the employee and the customer but the owners who made the decision. I cannot say for certain why management decided to behave in such a way but I’d like to think it is because they respect themselves.

A mistake was made, it happens, I understand that I also make poor decisions, that my errors affect others in negative way both personally and financially. One of my loyal customers got an amazing treat and I’m happy for them even though it cost me some money. My employee probably feels terrible about what happened and piling on isn’t going to make her or him a better person. A pat on the back and an understanding smile makes the world a better place and me a better person.

It seems to me many people are eager to lay blame, to lash out loudly against the stupidity of those who disagree, to attempt to gain retribution against those who make mistakes, to emotionally punish and hurt anyone who dares disagree. All of these actions make you a worse person. They tear you down because you know, somewhere deep inside, how awful you are being.

Being a decent human being is enlightened self-interest and so was smiling at the mistaken bottle of Chateau le Pin Pomerol 2001.

Tom Liberman

NPS or Net Promoter Score and What it Means

NPS

I just became aware of a tool used by many S&P 500 companies called NPS or Net Promoter Score. The basic idea is to find out how many of your customers are so-called Promoters. The thought being if your customers give a product a 9 or 10 rating on a ten-point scale, they are promoters. Those who give it a 7 or 8 are passives and those who give it a 0 through 6 are detractors. That is what I want to examine today, the idea of promoters, passives, and detractors.

The idea was created by a fellow named Fred Reichheld although he doesn’t approve of the way it is currently being used by management in many companies. There is a lot to said for the NPS system both for and against but that’s not going to be the gist of my blog today. I want to look at NPS from a different angle.

I used to work as an instructor and we often gave out those one to ten rating scales for students to evaluate their experience in the class. I’ve also filled out many of them for various products that I’ve purchased over the years. I’ve come to a completely different conclusion than Reichheld although the practical implications may be about the same.

The idea of promoters is, of itself quite interesting. There is an underrated movie called The Joneses which examines this idea in fairly great detail. I wrote a Libertarian review of the movie not long ago should you wish to read it. In any case, the idea is that promoters go out and tell other people how great is your product and influence them into purchasing it.

The NPS system lumps people who give a product a 9 or 10 rating as promoters. My experience is fairly different. People who habitually rate a product that high are almost always True Believers who either lack critical thinking skills or simply choose not to apply them. People who rate a good product as 7 or 8 generally are more inclined to be skeptical. My own thinking is that I would almost never rate anything a perfect ten as nothing is without flaws.

The bottom end of the scale is where I radically differ from ideology of the NPS. I think people who give a product a 0 through 2 rating are generally exactly the same as those who give it a 9 or 10. They are True Haters. They don’t like either the product or its manufacturer for some personal reason and no amount quality is going to change their mind. They are, in essence, exactly the same as the people who rate the product highly. It is my opinion it is these people who should be targeted by the manufacturer for they, if swayed through some small act of kindness, will become True Believers for life.

I would be interested in a study of NPS scores compared to religious and political beliefs to see if there is a correlation between individuals who give extreme scores and those who espouse extreme political ideas.

In summation, I actually agree with some of the principles of the NPS. The system might call them Promoters while I use the term True Believers. The system calls middle scorer givers Passives whereas I call them Skeptics. The end result is; however, valid. The True Believers will promote and purchase the product no matter the quality, whereas the Skeptics will purchase products from competitors if they are objectively better. It is only with the low scorers where my disagreement with the NPS conflicts with the actions of business leaders.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman

Tiger Woods and the Wrongful Death Suit

Tiger Woods Lawsuit

There’s a story in the news about Tiger Woods and his involvement in the death of Nicholas Immesberger I find interesting. Woods owns a restaurant in Jupiter, Florida called The Woods Jupiter, and Immesberger worked there. He was drinking during his shift and afterwards and died when his car overturned later that night. His blood alcohol content was more than three times the legal limit when he died.

At issue is the Florida statute which holds a person liable for damages if they knowingly serve someone who is habitually addicted to alcohol. Immesberger attended Alcoholic Anonymous meetings in the past and had crashed his car previously while drunk. The people who worked with Immesberger knew of this and thus are potentially liable for the harm caused.

Woods owns the establishment and his girlfriend, who is the general manager of the bar and restaurant, drank with Immesberger a few nights before the fatal accident. Therefore, the lawsuit seeks to hold them accountable for the death even though neither of them actually served drinks to Immesberger the night of his death.

Many states have laws fairly similar to Florida in that it is illegal to serve someone who is a known alcoholic or who is obviously quite intoxicated. I personally agree doing so is not a particularly kind thing. If a person is stumbling drunk, she or he probably shouldn’t be served any more alcohol. If a person is an alcoholic, it would be somewhat of a service to refuse to provide drinks to her or him. That being said, I don’t think either action should be a matter for the state to adjudicate.

There are many problems with the law but the first and foremost from this Libertarian’s perspective is that it largely absolves the drunkard from responsibility. If a person chooses to drink to the point of intoxication and then hurts or kills someone else, or themselves, in an accident; that is completely the responsibility of said person. The statute seeks to put accountability on the server.

Another enormous issue is the law, by its very nature, is going to be applied unevenly and can easily be used by the state to persecute perceived enemies. It is quite certain people habitually addicted to alcohol are served in such establishments every minute of every day. Oftentimes it is quite well known the person has a problem. Basically, prosecutors get to choose when and if they are going to use the law.

The purpose of the law is an attempt to get people to stop serving alcoholics. A noble resolve but a clear attempt at social engineering. Good intentions are often the precursors of bad laws. Immesberger is dead because he chose to drink and drive.

If you think the lawsuit is egregious and without merit then you necessarily think the law is such. The letter of the law indicates at least the bartenders are liable if not Woods and the general manager.

I certainly think the employees of The Woods Jupiter should not have served him so much alcohol over the course of the day and evening. They should not have stood by while he drove off. That’s a moral failing, not a legal one.

Tom Liberman