Monthly Archives: January 2021

When you Throw the Constitution out the Window

Posted on by
Throw the Constitution out the Window

What happens when you throw the Constitution out the window? It’s a fair question these days because both Republican and Democrats, about 95% of all voters in the country, are fully on board with ignoring that document whenever they find it convenient.

Our sordid tale didn’t start with one president or one particular Executive Order but it escalated to new heights under President Trump and his endless national emergencies and is continuing in that direction under President Biden.

One example of this is the arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A few years back Saudi Arabia blew up a busload of school children in Yemen and our brilliant members of Congress thought to themselves; hey, why exactly are we selling Saudi Arabia the means and giving them the training required to do this? So, when the sale of arms to that country came up, the members of Congress voted against it. Done deal, right? I mean the Constitution of the United States is clear. Purse strings equal Congress.

Oh, how wrong you were. President Trump simply said screw Congress. It’s a national emergency, I can do whatever I want; here you go Saudis have it, kill as many school children in Yemen as you want, it’ll all be good.

Now President Biden has said, now wait a second, I might not want to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates so I’m putting those sales on hold. Well, sorry to say, self-righteous Democrats, that’s not within his authority either.

I’ve written a number of articles that touch on the idea Congress and the President seem quite happy to throw the constitution out the window when it serves their purposes. The expansion of executive power, whether or not government should control our energy policies, and if we should be involved in the idea of economic sanctions at all.

All of these thoughts swirl around the fact we largely allow government officials to do whatever they want and whenever they want; because we agree with the policies so enacted. The problem, of course, is the politicians aren’t always the ones for whom we voted. Sometimes the other party comes into office and uses these powers in ways we don’t like. Oh, how we cry then.

The underlying problem is that no one cares. Everyone is happy, eventually, when Congress and the Executive Branch does whatever they want without any regard for the Constitution of the United States. Sure, you don’t like Biden cancelling the contract, sure you didn’t like Trump making the contract, but by supporting either, you are supporting both, not that you seem capable of thinking that broadly on the topic.

Virtually every unconstitutional executive order Biden signs is simply counteracting unconstitutional executive orders signed by Trump.

What happens when you throw the Constitution out the window? Dictators come into power. The Founding Fathers? They knew it and cared deeply about preventing it. You know it also; you just don’t care.

Tom Liberman

Everything Wrong with a Bigfoot Hunting Season

Posted on by
Bigfoot Hunting Season

Oklahoma state representative Justin Humphrey filed a bill to open a Bigfoot Hunting season and people are apparently angry about it. Why are they angry? Because Bigfoot might be killed in the Bigfoot Hunting season. Well, there are quite a few things wrong here and I’m the fellow to tell you about it.

It’s fairly difficult trying to pick a place to start. Shall I succumb to my Libertarian outrage and focus on government involvement in something it has no justification? Perhaps I should start with the stupidity that are people concerned with disrupting the non-existent lifestyle of a mythical creature.

I don’t want to bog down in a debunking article talking about fossil evidence, climate, food source, genetic stability in a small population, or other common arguments about why Bigfoot cannot exist. I’ve already written about why people are prone to believing such nonsense.

Anyone who is outraged that Humphrey wants to institute a Bigfoot Hunting season because they are worried about the safety and well-being of such creatures is an idiot.

Then there is Humphrey and those who think this is a good idea to generate tourism and revenue to the state of Oklahoma. This group of people are completely wrong but in a different way. Humphrey is a representative of the state of Oklahoma and a government official. He should not be generating revenue for the state by selling hunting licenses for a mythical creature. That’s something private industry should be doing.

What, what, what? You ask. That’s right, I have no problem with the scheme as a whole, if people want spend their money on hunting licenses for a mythical creature, that’s their business. If some private entrepreneur wants to cash in on this myth, great, have at it. I approve wholeheartedly. People spend their money on a lot of stupid things and my role-playing games and video games certainly strike many as a waste of money. I enjoy it, I’ll keep spending my money as I see fit.

Obviously, the company so involved needs to make sure they use private property for their fun, ensure no one is using a working firearm, and pay for insurance in the inevitable eventuality that some idiot trips over a log and breaks their neck. That’s all part and parcel of living in a free society.

When government is the one to institute such activities, it has gone far beyond its intended role. Humphrey completely misunderstands the role of government in society and he is not alone. Government officials think they are in the business of generating revenue rather than serving citizens. Most of their schemes involve getting money and if they happen to help the citizens, well, that’s a nice bonus.

It’s a government run Disney Land, nothing more and nothing less.

Tom Liberman

Pam Oliver had a Bad Day

Posted on by
Pam Oliver

There’s a bit of an uproar in the sporting world because veteran sideline reporter Pam Oliver had a tough go of it at the Packers and Rams football game the other day. I did not see it live as I’ve pretty much quit on football, but during the game there were any number of reports about her troubles.

Pam Oliver has been a fixture of sideline reporting since she joined Fox Sports back in 1995. Her performance at the most recent game included stumbling to get out sentences and a general appearance of incoherence. Many people expressed concern, and because it’s the Internet, some poked fun at her.

Then I saw an article about the entire thing written by Donovan Dooley of Deadspin and I felt the irresistible compulsion to enter the fray. Dooley is angry that people would dare question Pam Oliver after her many years of excellent performance. My problem isn’t with Pam Oliver, who clearly was out of sorts, but with Dooley and his inane article.

Pam Oliver is a legend who doesn’t need anyone to defend her. Is the opening line of the article which then goes on to both defend her in every paragraph and attack both those who expressed concern and those who made light of the situation. If your opening sentence is a direct contradiction of the entire tone of your article, it’s a hint there is a problem.

Even Dooley admits she had an off day. After watching some of the links, it is clear her inability to properly express her thoughts was more than a little alarming. The idea she had some sort of medical condition, or perhaps a bad reaction to medication, or something else was entirely reasonable and those who expressed this seem to me to be far more concerned with her well-being than Dooley. Dooley presumably would stand idly by, pushing away emergency crews, while she collapsed onto the turf and began convulsing, claiming she just needed a moment.

I don’t care how great you’ve been historically, if you’re clearly struggling in the manner Pam Oliver was, expressing concern is the normal and appropriate reaction. Sure, some people were making fun of the situation and if Dooley wants to take those people to task, so be it. He makes no distinction between those expressing concern and those poking fun.

Frankly, if you’re going to be a public figure, you better be ready for some ridicule. Believe me, I blog plenty and write novels so I’ve heard plenty of criticism, particularly when I make mistake, rare as that might be.

One thing Dooley gets right is that Pam Oliver doesn’t need anyone to defend her. She’s a capable, professional, and talented sports reporter. She doesn’t need anyone to defend her, especially a wannabe savior like Dooley. I’m sure she can defend herself quite nicely.

Were I Pam Oliver, I’d be more pissed at Dooley than any of those who expressed concern over her performance.

Tom Liberman

What does Freedom Feel Like?

Posted on by
Freedom Feel Like

While watching the aftermath of the events in Washington D.C. I was struck by one of the protestors who said this is what freedom feels like. It struck me because it is a question worth exploring. What does freedom feel like?

The person who said these words certainly believed them, as they were spoken with passion and almost ecstatic enthusiasm. I think there is a common confusion that doing what you want to do is the answer to the question. What does freedom feel like to the protestor? Me doing exactly what I want, to whomever I want, and forcing them to do the same.

Naturally, it becomes quite clear when we examine the entirety of the answer as I’ve restated above, it is fundamentally wrong and almost the exact opposite of the correct reply. It seems paradoxical and it’s easy to understand the confusion. Freedom does mean, to a certain degree, being able to do what you want without interference from, particularly, the state. So, when someone is beating a police officer to force their view of the world onto those who disagree, it understandably feels like freedom. I’m doing what I want and getting my way.

This, happily, is only half the answer to the question as to what does freedom feel like. The other half of the answer is allowing other people to do as they desire. That’s the full answer to the question. Yes, I’m free to do as I want but to experience true freedom, I must allow others to do as they want, I must not use personal, or government, force to coerce others into doing something they do not want to do.

This is the conundrum of government as a whole and one of the driving forces of the Libertarian ideology. If we understand some people do bad things, anything from traffic violations to murder, then we must have rules and ways to enforce them. Government and law enforcement largely being the solution.

It is the implementation of those rules and enforcements that are of concern when we try to answer the question of what does freedom feel like. How much should we force people to do as I want. Where does your freedom to drive 100 mph down a neighborhood street infringe on my right to walk to the grocery store?

These are not easy questions to answer but I can state, with unequivocal certainty, that beating police officers, coercing politicians, violently telling half the population that you will bend them to your will is not the feeling of freedom, it is the glorious and disgusting feeling of unchecked, violent power, enforced with fists and guns.

We have elections, we have courts, we have law enforcement officers. Because they, through normal processes, decided that your candidate lost an election is not taking away your freedom. It is you who is taking, it is you who is stealing, it is you who is crushing freedom; despite your feelings to the contrary.

Tom Liberman

Ken Jennings Replacing Alex Trebek

Posted on by
Ken Jennings

The last episode of the game show Jeopardy hosted by Alex Trebek aired this past Friday and speculation has been rampant that Ken Jennings will be his replacement. Ken Jennings is largely considered the greatest Jeopardy contestant of all time and, as such, seemed to many people, a natural replacement for the iconic Trebek.

It was clear to me from the beginning that Ken Jennings wasn’t a good fit for the position but the speculation and expectations give me an opportunity to speak on a subject I find quite interesting. Being good at one thing doesn’t mean you’re going to be good at anything else.

Sports fans like myself are well aware of the old adage that those who cannot do, teach. Generally speaking, the best managers of baseball teams are those that weren’t particularly great players. This fact translates to most athletics. Yet, there is a common, I’d almost say universal, perception of exactly the opposite. People think a great player will make a great manager and are shocked and disappointed when it fails to happen.

I’m not going to talk about Ken Jennings and his various social media statements as a reason to disqualify him from hosting Jeopardy. I want to discuss the qualities that make a person good at one thing and why people seem to think those self-same qualities will translate to something else.

Ken Jennings has a fantastically well-rounded knowledge of many subjects. We call this trivia but that is not really a fair assessment. He has knowledge and a lot of it. He is also coordinated enough to be able to click in at the right moment which is no easy task on Jeopardy. Often times you have to click quickly before your mind even truly processes that you know the answer. You have to understand the pattern of the question, match it to your general knowledge, and come to the conclusion you will likely know the answer before you click the button, as there is a penalty for incorrect answers. That Ken Jennings is elite, perhaps the best in the world, at this, is unquestionable.

Asking the questions is a completely different skill set. Hitting a baseball is completely different than understand when a starting pitcher has had enough, especially when he’s your ace and he’s damned pissed when you come out to the mound to take him out of the game.

What I’m trying to say seems obvious and I think most people agree. Being a game show contestant is a completely different skill set than being a host. Ken Jennings is a bit awkward; his body language is stilted; he doesn’t provide a comfortable personality which draws out the best of contestants. He’s just not going to be a good host, that’s reality and it’s relatively obvious.

So, why? Why do people think he’ll be the best host of Jeopardy to replace the fantastic Trebek? Why do humans seem to connect excellence in one thing with greatness in another? Why do we think a world class expert in one subject has anything useful to tell us about another topic? And, most importantly, why do we put someone in a position of power in a field for which they have no knowledge?

Dr. Ben Carson, current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, is a brilliant neurosurgeon. He also believes the Great Pyramids were built as grain silos. This is the folly of believing because someone excels in one field, they must be fully qualified to do something else. It’s a dangerous way to make decisions.

Yes, Ken Jennings is a great Jeopardy contestant. Of this there is no question. However, he’s almost certainly not a great Jeopardy host and this is the lesson.

Tom Liberman

Josh Hawley and the Book Publisher

Posted on by
Josh Hawley

I, once again, get to discuss the implications of Freedom of Speech thanks to Senator Josh Hawley and his disagreement with Simon and Schuster. Apparently, Josh Hawley planned to release a book but after his involvement in the riots at Capital Hill the publisher decided to cancel the project. Hawley believes this is a Freedom of Speech, First Amendment issue and he’s right, sort of. Let me explain.

Josh Hawley argument goes as follows: This could not be more Orwellian. Simon and Schuster is canceling my contract because I was representing my constituents, leading a debate on the Senate floor on voter integrity, which they have now decided to redefine as sedition. Only approved speech can now be published. This is the Left looking to cancel everyone they don’t approve of. I will fight this cancel culture with everything I have. We’ll see you in court.

Simon and Schuster is a private company that publishes books. It is quite clear they can publish whatever books they want and they can choose not to publish other books, say twelve fantastic Sword and Sorcery fantasy novels written by a fellow I know. That’s their right and while I can certainly argue that said twelve novels are among the greatest in human literature, I can’t force them to publish any more than Josh Hawley can do so.

From a Freedom of Speech there is an important difference in me ranting about how unfair it is and Hawley trying using his position as a government official to force Simon and Schuster to publish his book. He is violating the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment. It is quite unambiguous to interpret but that doesn’t stop Josh Hawley from getting it completely wrong, his understanding of the clause is actually the opposite of its real meaning.

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech ….

That’s it. That’s the wording. Josh Hawley is a member of Congress. Simon and Schuster is not a member of Congress, it isn’t even a person. It’s a private company that gets to choose what they do and do not publish which is at the very center of our freedom from government interference.

When Josh Hawley claims Simon and Schuster must publish his book, he is in direct and obvious violation of the Freedom of Speech clause. His ignorance in regard to the meaning of the Constitution of the United States is disheartening although entirely expected.

Tom Liberman