Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Immediacy of Consequence and Faith in the Improbable

Posted on by

faith-and-reasonWith the plethora of stories involving things along the lines of Flat Earth I’ve been thinking about why people are willing to believe certain things on faith while being much more pragmatic in other areas of their life. For example, the belief in alien visitors is, so far, a faith-based ideology. Whereas the belief in the chair you are sitting in is based on strong physical evidence.

I understand people make what they think are rational arguments for a Flat Earth, Pizzagate, Aliens, and many other theories; but the evidence for these things is universally lacking. Those same people would look at you quite askance should you tell them there was a comfortable chair ready for them to plop down into right behind them. They would look for said chair and confirm visually that it did exist. They might reach their hand or foot through the area to confirm nothing was actually there. They would then dismiss your assertion and refuse to sit.

Why are people much more likely to believe fanciful accounts of a Flat Earth but universally unwilling to believe something about a simple object in front of them? I believe the answer is the immediacy of the consequence associated with the belief. A more immediate and greater penalty for the belief inevitably leads to a sounder thought process.

Should you believe the person claiming the chair is actually there and sit down, you face a rather painful and embarrassing fall. Should you believe the Earth is flat you risk no physical harm although you might face some ridicule. Many enjoy the ridicule. They enjoy coming up with improbable or impossible arguments to prove the attacks of September 11th against the World Trade Center and other targets were actually orchestrated by some conspiracy minded organization aside from the actual perpetrators. Such improbable beliefs actually set them out and give them a sense of individuality. They actually feel smarter and better about themselves for refusing to be fooled, even though they are actually quite stupid.

Belief in such things entails no immediate risk. Belief that aliens are secretly directing our actions doesn’t really change your life in any tangible way. You still go about your daily business in pretty much the same way you would if the notion was false. There is no immediate punishment for such beliefs.

However, if someone tells you that the car you are planning on purchasing is a fantastic car, most people will not accept this advice. They will do some research to make certain the automobile meets their desired needs. The same goes for any major purchase. The more money you are planning on spending the more likely it is you will spend time in pragmatic research to ensure the product is exactly what you need.

Many people are happy to spend a few dollars on a product advertised as a miracle drug without much thought. Scam artists rely on this facet of human nature. Imagine a group of 100 people was asked to spend five dollars on a product that guaranteed fresh breath. I would guess at least half would do so. However, if the same product was offered for five hundred dollars I suspect only a few people would be willing to make the outlay.

Where do you think you fit in on this scale of faith? I would guess most people, myself included, consider themselves pragmatic thinkers requiring good evidence. I think most people would be wrong.

On the Bell Curve of Faith Based Thinking where would you put Yourself?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Right is Right when it Comes to the Nuns and Katy Perry

Posted on by

Katy PerryAn ongoing story involving Katy Perry and a pair of nuns recently heated up again when one of the nuns passed away in court and the other claimed bankruptcy. I think what’s important to understand is Perry is completely in the right. Yet, there are clearly many who think she should give up her claim because the elderly nuns are a sympathetic pair. Bah humbug, says this scrooge.

I think the first step we should take is to examine the case itself. Five nuns lived at a property called Los Feliz for many years although moved away a few years back. The property is owned by the Los Angeles Archdiocese although two of the five nuns claim they were the actual owners because of their long years living there. The three other nuns are not part of the legal situation and support the Archdiocese’s right to sell.

Katy Perry expressed an interest in the property and was in negotiations to purchase it when the two nuns got wind of the sale. They watched a few of Perry’s videos and decided they didn’t approve of her. So, they contracted with a third party and quickly sold it for well under it’s value with a miniscule down payment.

The judge ruled that they had no right to sell the property and the third party was engaged in tampering and ordered Dana Hollister to pay Perry and the Archdiocese no small fee. “Clearly invalid,” was the term the judge used in regards to the sale.

It seems clear Perry is right from a legal aspect but I’m willing to go significantly further. I think she’s right from an ethical perspective. The nuns are behaving horribly and using their position to vilify Perry and break the law. They are acting in an incredibly entitled fashion. We don’t like Perry. They claim they are somehow breaking their vows by allowing the property, that they haven’t lived at for years, to be sold to someone so evil as Perry. Their behavior is despicable and filled with selfish and righteous horse manure.

The two, now one, are a playing on the sympathies of those who look at them and see a pair of elderly nuns being taken advantage of by a ruthless mogul when the opposite is closer to the truth. The nuns are acting ruthlessly and viciously exploiting their position to turn public opinion against Perry.

The surviving nun is now claiming she is bankrupt despite the fact the Archdiocese continues to pay all her living expenses and has expressed it will continue to do so until her death. She is saying terrible things about Perry.

I will not stand by. I’m calling her out! Try to be a decent human being in your last years of life you angry and bitter old woman. Yep, I’m yelling at a nun and I’m doing it because she is legally and ethically in the wrong.

Don’t give up the fight, Katy. And, if you ever happen to visit St. Louis, dinner and a drink? My treat.

Tom Liberman

United Airlines and Would You Trade a Quarterly Bonus for a Chance at a Big Prize?

Posted on by

United AirlinesUnited Airlines recently announced they were doing away with a quarterly bonus of $300 to all eligible employees and instituting a lottery wherein those same employees have a chance to win $100,000 and other prizes. What I’d like to ask is if you would want such a plan at your place of work?

Let’s look at the metrics. United Airlines employees almost 90,000 people although we have no way of knowing how many of those get the incentive bonus of $300. It is based on things like attendance so it doesn’t sound particularly difficult to achieve. I’m going to say that about a quarter of the employees get the bonus. That’s 22,000 bonuses of $300 awarded each quarter for a total of $6.6 million in payouts.

We have to do a bit more guesswork on the value of the remaining prizes United Airlines is giving out but let’s say the total package is worth $2 million. That’s a saving of $4.6 million dollars for the company. Pretty nifty. It might be more, it might be less, but I think it’s fair to say the new policy is designed to save the company money. United Airlines executives claim it will generate employee excitement but I think it’s reasonable to infer this line is somewhat disingenuous.

Under the old plan an employee who met the standards receives $300 each quarter. That’s not a life-changing sum by any imagination. A bonus of $100,000 and trips are, obviously, of significantly greater value to an individual employee. The employee who wins the bigger prize is quite happy while all the employees who gave up the $300 for nothing are not as thrilled. From a metric point of view that’s about 21,900+ employees who are angry and 100, depending on how many prizes are offered, who are happy, each quarter.

Will this mean more employees seek the bonus? Fewer? These are interesting questions to me. They speak to psychological motivations. Would you do more for the chance at a greater prize or do less because your chance of getting something is greatly diminished? Would it not change your work behavior at all?

What do you think?

Would you be for or against a plan like United Airlines?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Protectionism and the Steel Industry

Posted on by

steel-tariffPresident Trump plans to establish a large tariff on steel and aluminum. He is an avowed protectionist and that generally means making it more expensive for foreign companies to do business in the United States. I wrote a blog specifically about the trade in automobiles and our agreements with Mexico in January of 2017 but the situation is different enough this time that I thought I’d revisit the subject.

The basic idea behind almost any tariff is that foreign countries are engaged in supporting various industries in their nation and this gives those companies an unfair advantage over competing companies in the United States. I will not be getting into a discussion about the long-term impact of trade wars and how industry in the United States might be negatively impacted if countries choose to retaliate against our trade laws. Nor will I be talking about what constitutes unfair trade and our own transgressions in that regard. I’d like to keep today’s topic on the simple idea of the immediate impact of the tariffs.

Countries that import aluminum and steel into the United States will have to pay more in order to do business in this country. In the case of steel, a whopping twenty-five percent more. This means companies in the United States currently producing steel will gain a competitive advantage. Those companies might hire more workers and open more plants to start producing steel at a price higher than is currently being sold by those foreign countries but at a lower price than after the tariffs come into play.

Let’s imagine a steel manufacturer in a foreign country currently produces steel at a price of X. A competing company in the United States produces steel at a price of Y. X is less than Y and therefore foreign companies are selling us lots of steel. However, X is less than Y*1.25 and thus United States companies will be aided. They will benefit. That’s the main idea behind protectionism and at this point you might be nodding your head and thinking what a great idea it is. There is, as they say, a rub.

Everyone in the United States purchases and uses products with steel and aluminum in them. From soda and beer cans, to cars, to packaging, to windows, to doors, to siding, to many household items, street lighting, electrical lines, and more. Steel is used in buildings, roads, appliances, guns, cutlery, watches, surgical instruments, and more.

When the price of steel inevitably goes up because of these tariffs then everyone who uses these items, and that means everyone in the United States, every man, woman, and child, pays more. If people have to pay more for one thing then they inevitably have less money to pay for other things. Perhaps a family decides not to get their deck rebuilt or decides to pass on that Nashville vacation this year.

The case against Chinese steel has merit. It is possible the government is helping industry manufacturer steel at a price that cannot be met by U.S. steel companies. The question we must ask is who is hurt by this practice and who is helped?

The answer is quite straight forward. The companies and people in the United States who produce steel are hurt as are the taxpayers in China. The people who are helped is everyone in the United States including the steelworkers who get various products at a cheaper rate.

That’s economics. If you can get a comparable product at a cheaper price then you do so. You should do so. That’s a good thing. That good thing is what tariffs subvert. These tariffs will help a small percentage of the people in the United States, there is no doubt about that. That’s the appeal. We see an industry and want to help it, not thinking about the larger ramifications of such policies.

Whenever I’m talking about subjects of this nature I always remember the underrated gem, Other People’s Money. Danny DeVito plays Larry Garfield and gives an impassioned speech about the last buggy whip manufacturer. If a company can’t compete, they need to get out of the business before they are totally bankrupt.

If the government steps in and increases the price of steel then United States companies will be able to sell their product in the United States but there alone. No other country will want our high-priced steel. Eventually the tariffs will fail, as they always do. Then the steel companies and you will be back where we started. The difference will be that you’ll have less money in your pocket.

That’s the facts. That why economists don’t like tariffs and protectionist policies in general. They stave off the inevitable at an enormous cost.

Do I feel pity for the steel industry and the workers? You bet I do. It’s a sad fact of life. Everyone can’t be a winner in the game. That’s the nature of the world and of economics. President Trump would be far better off using taxpayer money on retraining steel workers for industries that can compete. I’d be all for that.

I cannot, I will not support tariffs. They just don’t work.

Tom Liberman

Polish Poker Players are from Poland and Play Poker

Posted on by

pokerI was watching one of my favorite poker streamers the other day when someone posted in chat a question about Polish Poker players. What did Tonkaaap think about them? He replied, without much thought, that he supposed they were poker players. This seems like a small thing but it struck my Objectivist ideology with an arrow shot to the heart.

The idea behind the question is that in the poker community there are those who think players from various countries have particular traits and certain tactics might be used to have better results against such people. Tonkaaaap dismissed this idea casually and with barely a moment’s thought. He was right to do so, naturally, but I wanted to spend some time discussing the nature of tendencies and why they mean nothing about an individual.

It’s absolutely true that groups of people have tendencies based on the cultural and social norms from where the originate. It’s quite possible that a certain percentage of poker players from Poland will behave in some general fashion during the course of the hand. This tendency is a natural product of spending time with a similar group of people.

I’m going to use chess as an example. I played chess as a youngster but the number of people I played against was limited by geography. We had no internet and the only way to play was staring at the person across a physical board. This meant I played the same people all the time and they, of course, did the same. This meant that we all fell into tendencies based upon the limited pool of opponents. If you were to play against someone from St. Louis you might find we play a similar game. However, you could not make such generalizations about all players from St. Louis and if you did would certainly be setting yourself up for defeat as you encountered stronger players from the region. That’s Tonkaaap’s point. He is playing for real money. He can’t afford to make assumptions about individual players simply based on their geographic location. He must play against each player as an individual, analyzing their tendencies, and making the best decision possible at that moment.

This is, in a nutshell, Objectivism. We certainly can and do judge people based on superficial things like place of birth, gender, sexual orientation, skin color, heritage, age, appearance, and any number of other things. But, when we do so we not only do them a disservice, we set ourselves up for failure. If you discount or even simply refuse to consider someone because of these things then you are hurting yourself.

Let’s imagine you are the coach of a baseball team. It’s quite clear that men are bigger and stronger than women on average. The best baseball players in the world are all men. If a woman tries out for the team and you refuse to give her a chance you might be missing out on a player who can help you succeed. This goes for all aspects of life. Groups of people have differences, but we can’t let these general tendencies guide our decision-making processes. We must judge individuals on their actual performance.

Another thing to consider is the nature of globalization. Getting back to my chess. I now play people from all over the world thanks to the internet. I am no longer constrained by geography. This has improved my game tremendously and also largely eliminated all the tendencies I learned playing a boy.

This exposure to new ideas and things means we are all losing our geographic based tendencies. It means anyone, from anywhere, can succeed or fail based solely on their merits. And that’s a good thing.

Tom Liberman

Exorcism Requests on the Rise

Posted on by

exorcismCases of people asking for demons to be expelled in rights of Exorcism are rising rapidly in at least Italy if not elsewhere in the world and the Catholic Church is responding by holding a conference on the subject. The church hopes to train more priests capable of properly performing the exorcism. There are apparently many young priests who find the entire process questionable and refuse to take part. Good for them.

I’ll be honest right out of the gate, I’m an Atheist. Just as there is no god there are no demons. What people consider demonic possession is generally one of two things. It is mental illness or someone who has done something horrible and is unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions. According to the church, if someone is possessed by a demon they are not responsible for their actions. It’s a good thing our legal system is absolutely not based on the Judeo/Christian religious teachings. Can you imagine if it was? Would any Christian ever be guilty of anything, ever again? It’s a free pass.

The Old Testament is pretty much devoid of anything resembling a demonic possession although there is a very questionable incident that depends on a favorable translation to fit even remotely into the idea. Exorcism is almost entirely based on scripture that references first Jesus and then his disciples casting out demons with a simple command.
If Jesus could do such a thing it must mean that demons do exist. If demons exist then they must be able to take possession of a person and force them to do things they would otherwise not do. It seems clear to me that people are capable of the most vile and disgusting acts of inhumanity without any supernatural intervention whatsoever. There is also plenty of evidence of mental illness which, until quite recently, was treated in horrific ways.

The issue that presents itself is people are increasingly of the opinion they are possessed by demons. The church and its priests must deal with this phenomenon. It is absolutely real to them and to be treated in the same way any other problem is handled. If a person has a cold, treat it. If a person is possessed by demons, treat it.
There is a list of supposed symptoms that the afflicted will sometimes display if it is a demonic possession rather than mental illness or a simple ruse, but there little or no ability to distinguish between them.

My problem with all of this is twofold. Believe what you will. That’s religious freedom. But when mentally ill or criminally irresponsible people are being treated for exorcism; it means they are not being treated for their real problems. That makes me both sad and angry.

I’m not foolish enough to think that I can change anyone’s mind on this issue. Either you believe demonic possession is possible and can be treated with an exorcism or you think it is complete nonsense. I’m just sad and angry.

Do you believe Demonic Possession is real and Exorcism a Remedy?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Died Searching for Forrest Fenn Treasure

Posted on by

Forrest Fenn TreasureA fellow by the name of Jeff Murphy recently died while searching for the Forrest Fenn Treasure. The entire series of events speaks directly to this Libertarian about the place of government in society. He claims to have left the Fenn Treasure worth approximately $2 million somewhere in the Rocky Mountains and at least four people have died searching for it. What do we take from this?

Fenn is unapologetic. He says life is dangerous and if people choose to look for the Fenn Treasure that he claims to have placed, that is their business. It is not his responsibility should they die while doing so. The relatives of the people who have died, and those who have spent considerable time and effort, seem to largely agree.

The gold coins, jade figurines, rubies, emeralds, diamonds, and gold nuggets that Fenn claims are buried somewhere in the Rockies are supposedly worth about two million. The people who spend many hours of lives looking for this treasure seem to have no regrets, nor does Fenn, despite the deaths.

As a Libertarian I think it’s perfectly reasonable for people to choose to spend their time looking for this treasure despite the potential dangers. I also think it’s not a legal issue if he chose to place the Fenn Treasure in a hidden location. Now, that being said, I think it’s a bad idea. Fenn has largely instigated the events that led to people dying, but the deaths are entirely the responsibility of the searchers. They chose to look for the treasure. They well understand Fenn might be lying. People lie all the time, it’s not illegal to lie.

Fenn receives nothing from those who waste their time searching for the potentially non-existent treasure. He has written a book on the subject and people have purchased it, but no one is being forced to buy the book or to spend their time searching for the treasure. That is their own decision, foolish as it might be.

People do stupid things all the time. I might relate my own story involving a dark-haired vixen at the gym whom I recently pursued to no avail but I shall remain silent. There is no law against being stupid and that is a good thing. It is exactly when the government tries to save us from our own idiocy that we run into significant issues. It’s just not the government’s job to stop us from doing dumb things, that is up to us.

To my way of thinking it is situations exactly like this that lead to government overreach and with the willing help of We the People. It’s tragic that Fenn has either placed the treasure or lied about doing so because it led other people to die. He is undeniably irresponsible. On the other hand, many people have gone searching for the treasure and had fine adventures without hurting themselves physically and probably gaining some benefit from the time spent exercising outdoors.

When it comes to personal liberty there is always a tradeoff in safety. Freedom is free, it’s just not safe.

Should there be laws against doing what Fenn did?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Chinese Casino Owns Saipan

Posted on by

Saipan CasinoA company claiming to be a Chinese casino purveyor completely owns and largely operates the United States island of Saipan. The total corruption of government is something that happens in foreign countries, not in the United States of America, or so you thought.

Saipan is Commonwealth of the United States. This means it operates under United States law. Well, at least it did until a Chinese company called Imperial Pacific moved into town. They claim to own and operate casinos although they are really a money laundering organization. Wealthy Chinese citizens fly to Saipan, turn in enormous sums of yuan currency, play the tables for a few days winning or losing small amounts, and then collect their money in dollars, euros, or sterling. This allows them to take their money out of China, where it might be seized by the communist government at any moment, and transfer it to banks throughout the world where it less likely to be stolen. The middle people take their cut and that share has completely corrupted the government of Saipan.

The problem is they need the support of the local government in order to make this happen. Before the casino was finished, it still isn’t in full operation, it was doing about $2 billion a month in transactions. Imperial Pacific pays $15 million a year to the local government and has hired former U.S. Governors and high-level FBI and CIA officials to front its operations. These are merely bribes to ensure they can continue their operations without legal oversight. Lawmakers in Saipan have changed any number of laws in order to accommodate Imperial Pacific’s various schemes. The families of the leading politicians are all on the payroll one way or another, construction projects, zoning plans, land deals, etc.

The casino itself was built in an unsafe way by undocumented workers, all because the politicians of Saipan and their friends in the United States willfully turned, and continue to turn, a blind eye. There’s money to be made, after all.

That’s the moral of the story. Never has the world been so awash in money, enormous sums. When people try to resist this avalanche of cash they are simply ignored or punished. The only people who get ahead are those on the take. Government is swept away in the wave.

You might think the United States is immune to the malign influence of corruption, graft, and bribery. Those days are over. Wealthy democracies are slowly succumbing to this influence. Those who worship money are quickly coming into positions of power the world over.

What’s at stake? Your freedom.

Tom Liberman

Jail for Baptizing Baby Misleading Headline

Posted on by

The headline reads: North Carolina mother jailed for baptizing 2-year-old daughter. The reality is quite different. Kendra Stocks was jailed for violating a court order that gave the baby’s father final say in legal custody decisions including those of a religious nature.

Stocks was specifically told by the judge not to have the Baptism without the father present. The two are engaged in a custody battle over the baby. She went ahead and did it anyway. Now she’s in jail.

I would hope nobody has a problem with it.

Tom

Blue Apron or Food Stamps?

Posted on by

food stampsPresident Trump is apparently championing an effort to change the way food stamps are allocated to people in the United States who cannot afford to feed themselves and I wanted to examine this from a Libertarian point of view. The current program distributes food stamps which can be used to purchase a variety of products although there are limits on the type of food that is allowed to be bought. The proposal is to replace this system with ingredients which are then prepared by the recipient, in the style of Blue Apron.

I suspect the reason this proposal is being considered is the perception people who are getting food stamps use them on wasteful items like processed foods such as chips or on expensive items like steak, rather than using them for staple items. This perception is largely incorrect although not particularly relevant to my objections.

There is certainly a visceral appeal to the idea of providing simple ingredients using healthy options to the people who use food stamps. I also agree it is probably healthier for many of those who get food stamps. There are a number of problems with this plan although I’d like to focus on a single one. The plan assumes government knows better what foods people should eat than the individuals themselves.

While government might be right in some instances, it is a classic example of the arrogance of those who promote a beneficent and intrusive government. We know what is better for you than you do, just trust us to put the right things in the food and don’t worry about anything else, we’ll take care of you.

Now, there are other issues. It is certainly more expensive to contract this work out and where billions of dollars of government contracts are in play there is inevitable corruption. There is no doubt the companies who receive the bids to provide the food will end up skimping on ingredients and hurting some people. Still, with that said, my objections are purely Libertarian.

Government should not be the one to make decisions about what you eat. Even if you are poor, cannot afford to purchase your own food, and must rely on government help, that does not give a bureaucrat the right to make such decisions for you.

Personally, I think the existing restrictions on food stamps should be removed. If people want to purchase chips, candy, and steak with their government allotted stamps, that’s their choice. Certainly, it is a bad selection that has negative impact on the family in question, but it is their choice.

While this particular cause will most likely be championed by so-called conservatives, it is really extremely liberal. It is big government, just one with which conservatives happen to agree. This apparent paradox is quite consistent with what I observe about our current political divide. Principles mean nothing, it is simply a matter of what is expedient to whichever party you imagine is on your side.

When we cede power to government over the individual we slowly erode our freedom. Do you agree with government deciding on the food we eat? Even if it doesn’t affect you but simply the poor people who, for whatever reason, are dependent on government aid?

Tom Liberman

Is a Diamond a Diamond?

Posted on by

diamondCompanies have been able to manufacture diamonds through industrial processes since the 1950s but with advances in technology it is now possible to create a diamond that is equivalent to those found in nature in all respects except, perhaps, resale price. These grown diamonds are significantly cheaper than their naturally occurring counterparts and their share of the market is increasing, much to the chagrin of those companies who sell found diamonds.

I think it’s an interesting study in human behavior because found diamonds and their grown competition are essentially identical from a practical respect. Yet, I imagine most people are so enamored with the illusion of a real diamond they would, if they had the financial wherewithal, generally purchase the more expensive version.

Let me be honest, I find the entire diamond industry to be largely artificial. Diamonds are not particularly rare but for a long time the companies that mine them kept enormous numbers in warehouses to create scarcity. In addition, those same companies launched successful advertising campaigns which promoted the idea of their value. I have no problem with either of these tactics, no one is forcing anyone to purchase an overly expensive rock. I just don’t plan on shelling out a bunch of money for a diamond.

That being said, I’m in the minority as far as this goes. Diamonds are considered an almost necessary declaration of love between a couple. The giving of diamonds from one person to another is considered of great importance in matters of romance. This is why people pay large sums for relatively common sized stones.

It’s also no surprise established diamond companies would like to convince people the grown stones are not equivalent to those found. Those companies producing the grown diamonds are quite interested in overcoming this perception. This is business and all quite normal.

I don’t have any great insight into this issue. I don’t really know if grown diamonds will eventually completely usurp their found counterparts or if the industry will continue to distinguish one as better than the other. Possibly diamonds will simply lose most of their value as people don’t find them useful in matters of the heart anymore. I don’t know, I just find the entire situation interesting from both a marketing standpoint and that of human psychology.

For those of my readers who actually have something more than an emotionless, pea-sized, black, barely beating heart; if you had enough money would you purchase the more expensive found diamond over the grown diamond despite their being molecularly the same?

Would you pay more for a "found" diamond?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Lady Friendly Doritos and why a Gender Trend is not Sexism

Posted on by

DoritosPepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi recently gave an interview in which she noted market research indicated men and women generally have different habits when eating Doritos, a snack made by the company. She said the company planned to release products that catered toward the eating habits of women. Social Justice Warriors Triggered!

How dare a company market a product designed specifically for men or for women besides, say, tampons and jockstraps. What unbridled sexism to suggest research indicates women generally don’t like to lick their fingers of the Dorito residue or pour the crumbly remnants of the bag directly into their mouth.

The problem is groups of people do perform tasks differently, eat particular foods, and otherwise differ from one another for a variety of reasons including gender. If PepsiCo has done market research indicating certain Dorito eating trends in women then promoting a product to that gender’s preferences makes sense. What it doesn’t mean is all women eat Doritos in a particular way. That’s the gist of all the tumult. An angry female says: I’m a woman and I do like to lick my fingers of the Dorito residue. I’m a woman and I enjoy pouring the crumbs from the bag into my mouth.

No one at PepsiCo is telling you how to eat your Doritos. They are simply creating and marketing a product toward particular trends their research indicates. They discovered a certain percentage of women don’t eat Doritos because their fingers get sticky and they don’t like leaving the crumbs behind but are unwilling to pour them directly into their mouths. I’m sure there are plenty of women who do these things just as I’m sure there are plenty of men who don’t like sticky fingers and crumbs.

Let’s imagine the research indicated 70% of women don’t like to eat Doritos in the way described. With there being about 300 million people in the United States and approximately 150 million of them being women that suggests 45 million women out there do not meet the trend. That’s a lot of ladies. It also means about 105 million of them behave as the marketing indicates. Now, I’m making up the 70% figure but let’s work with that for the sake of argument.

What PepsiCo has found is their product is unappealing to 105 million women because of the sticky residue and crumbly product. They want to target that large group of people, who happen to be mostly women. Is that wrong? Is that sexism? Is that terrible and awful? I say absolutely not. I say it’s finding a market and making a product that appeals to it. That’s smart business, not sexism.

No one is saying all women eat Doritos in a particular way or that all women are dainty and all men are rough. It is impossible to deny there are differences in women and men. Savvy companies use those tendencies to market their product to specific segments of society. Does anyone deny certain television shows and movies appeal more toward women than men and vice versa? Does this mean all women love Chick Flicks and hate Action Movies? Does it mean men don’t like Chick Flicks? No. I think Steel Magnolias is a great movie but I love The Right Stuff and Fight Club as well. It’s a tendency, not a sexist agenda.

Men and women are unalike in some respects and their respective preferences in eating Doritos might just be one of those differences. That’s a fact whether you like it or not.

Tom Liberman

Will Study Disproving Fish Oil Health Benefits Dissuade Believers?

Posted on by

fish oilA study involving 78,000 people shows taking Fish Oil supplements does nothing to prevent heart attacks or in any way reduce heart disease. No surprise there. The American Heart Association came to similar conclusions in a study last year. That being said, I’m fairly confident the study will almost certainly not change the purchasing habits of the almost 21% of United States citizens. Why?

A quick perusal of the internet shows me that a bottle of the pills can cost as little as $10 and as much as $40. Why would anyone continue to make the purchases when there is clear, empirical evidence they are completely ineffective? There are a number of reasons including something called Confirmation Bias but what I’d like to discuss today is the role pride has in all of this.

Pride seems to drive any number of poor decisions. By concluding all the money spent on fish oil supplements over the years was wasted, we are admitting a certain level of stupidity. There has long been a great deal of skepticism about supplements in general and fish oil in particular. It is quite likely most of the people taking fish oil supplements have been spoken to by friends and family expressing doubt about the efficacy of the product. The women and men taking it, and spending money on it, over the years have almost certainly defended the practice.

Many aficionados have likely read about the supposed benefits of fish oil touted by the manufacturers and decided to believe these claims despite the skeptics. There is some sense of their own self-worth tied up in taking the supplements.
This pride will be manifestly displayed in people who continue to take fish oil pills even after being confronted with incontrovertible evidence of their ineffectiveness. What does this tell us? It suggests that Pride is indeed one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The entire thing is really just an interesting study in human nature. We don’t like to be wrong and when I say we, I include myself. That being said, it is important to attempt to engage your critical thinking skills as much as possible when presented with information of this nature. If you take fish oil supplements, take a moment to consider the implications of the test. Take a few seconds to think about alerting your like-minded friends that the benefits do not exist, that taking the pills is not helpful to your health or to your financial future.

It is only when we can take our pride out of the equation that we can hope to make better decisions.
And to finish things up, an informal poll. If twenty percent of people in the United States are at this time taking fish oil supplements then certainly a few people that read this article will be among them. Will this study, and the one’s the preceded it, dissuade you from future purchases?

What is your take on Fish Oil Supplements

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Disgusting Behavior at the President’s Club Charitable Trust

Posted on by

president's clubThere’s a pretty interesting story making the headlines in London and throughout England in regards to the President’s Club Charitable Trust where many members of a group of wealthy business men behaved crassly toward the young women who acted as hostesses for the event. What I find fascinating about the proceedings that transpired is problems could have easily been solved by some simple communication.

First, let’s review what occurred at the event for those not familiar with the story. The charitable gathering was attended by only men. The female hostesses were groped, propositioned, pulled onto laps, and otherwise harassed during the occasion. Before the dinner began the women were told their job was to serve drinks and put up with annoying men.

The woman who exposed the activities, Madison Marriage, was working undercover as a hostess and in her article, admits that some of the hostesses, most likely those who knew what to expect and came as a group, had fun and enjoyed themselves during the event but many others were horrified and tried to hide in the restrooms to avoid the situation. These women were escorted out and forced to rejoin the party. This dichotomy of experiences tells us virtually everything we need to know.

The President’s Club planners needed to communicate with the hostesses exactly what sort of behavior they could expect and the men attending needed to understand what sort of activities would be tolerated. I’ll give you an example. Marriage indicates a man in his seventies asked a nineteen-year-old woman if she was a prostitute. Many people find that horrific. I have no problem with it. He asked, she told him no, and he continued on his way; presumably without bothering her further. That is the way the entire event should have unfolded.

The President’s Club should have been explained to the men attending they should keep their hands to themselves unless a hostess acquiesced to whatever he had in mind; maybe just holding hands, or sitting on his lap, or perhaps even performing sexual services for an agreed upon financial return. That any man who violated these rules would be warned and ejected if they persisted.

Meanwhile, the hostesses should have been told men would be propositioning them, hoping to hold hands, sit on their laps, perhaps asked to gyrate in only their underwear but they were under no obligation to do so. It’s clear to me from the story that some of the hostesses knew exactly what to expect, turned down propositions they didn’t like, and acquiesced to those requests they welcomed. They earned money for attending the event and possibly got side payments for particular behavior.

Communication was the key element missing from this entire sordid affair. The women and men were all adults of legal age and competent minds. They just needed to know what was expected and what would be tolerated. If that had been done I think everyone would have had an enjoyable experience.

Sure, the men are pigs. I get that. I’m a fifty+ year old man. A like looking at a pretty young woman. I enjoy it when the attractive waitress puts her hand on my shoulder or touches my elbow. I don’t grab her ass or try to shove my hand up her skirt but I might touch her shoulder and say thank you. Perhaps she wants a larger tip or maybe she finds me attractive and hopes I’ll ask for her phone number; maybe she wants both! That’s her prerogative and I think it’s wrong to tell any young woman she shouldn’t attend an event of this nature; provided she knows what she is getting into and the men are punished for behavior that goes over the line.

The idea older men should not be interested in slap-and-tickle with younger women is a hopeless concept. Some men will always be interested. And the general assumption the women were all harassed, abused, and needed protection is also nonsense. Some women enjoy this sort of event and should be allowed to attend without shame.

Adults should be trusted to make these sorts of decisions on their own. The women don’t need to be protected and the men don’t need to be punished; provided everyone knew what was expected and reasonable limits were kept. That is the fault of the hosts.

The most egregious thing that happened at the event was the President’s Club forcing clearly uncomfortable women back to the party. That is despicable; the rest of it could have been easily avoided.

Tom Liberman

President Trump and the Friendship with Kim Jong-un

Posted on by

jong-unPresident Trump and the Wall Street Journal are disputing whether he used the word “I’d” or the word “I” in reference to his relationship with the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un. As a writer I find the use of words to be interesting and important. At their base, words are nothing more than sounds. However, these sounds are used to convey meaning and thus using the right words in particular circumstances can make a huge difference.

The disputed quote is as follows: I (I’d) probably have a good relationship with Jong-un. The quote using the singular “I” is the one touted by the Wall Street Journal while the one using “I’d” is that the White House and Trump claim is accurate. Let’s examine the different between the two.

If the Wall Street Journal is correct, Trump thinks he currently, most likely, has a good relationship with Jong-un. This statement is optimistic considering the two have engaged in a war of words from even before Trump came into office. Trump has called Jong-un by various derogatory names and the Supreme Leader of North Korea has returned the favor. Their relationship appears to be antagonistic.

On the other hand, if Trump’s version of the sentence is correct it means that under different circumstances he imagines he and Jong-un would have a good relationship. The exact nature of this other world is not explicitly stated but I’d guess it involves a situation where North Korea is not attempting to build Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles capable of dropping nuclear warheads on the United States.

What I find absolutely fascinating about this story is the vehemence coming from both sides considering the irrelevance of the difference. Whichever words are accurate they amount to exactly the same, horrific, thing. Jong-un is the leader of the most repressive, violent, and least free nation in the world. He has ordered the murder of his uncle, half-brother, and many others. His people live in abject poverty and worship him as a living god. He lives lavishly with many luxuries while many of the people in his country are starving to death. Trump believes he either does or could have a good relationship with this person.

I can state unequivocally I could not, under any circumstances, have a good relationship with Jong-un. He is the perpetrator of literal crimes against humanity. Were I President of the United States I would deal with him as the leader of another nation. I would attempt to negotiate a better way for his people, but I would not, I could not, have a good relationship with him. Anyone who imagines they have such a relationship, or actually has one, with Jong-un clearly does not understand the nature of this man. Someone who thinks they have a good relationship with Jong-un is sick. Their mind is diseased.

The thought of the suffering in North Korea directly and indirectly attributable to Jong-un makes me physically ill. The thought of those millions of people suffering unnecessarily induces rage. The idea of him enjoying conspicuous luxuries and total freedom while denying even basic amenities to the people is nauseating to me. He is a vile person, possibly the worst excuse for a human currently alive.

It matters not if Trump is deluded enough to think he does have a good relationship with Jong-un or whether he only imagines he might have one; it shows a disturbing detachment from reality. No decent human could possibly imagine they have a good relationship with such a monster. To do so is to ignore the suffering engendered by Jong-un, to pretend the world is other than it is.

I ask you, could you have a good relationship with Jong-un? Would it be possible with an understanding of what he has done, who he is?

I hope the answer is no.

Tom Liberman

Early Morning Exercise Bad for You Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Exercise UnhealthyHow Waking Up Early in the morning could be Counterproductive blares the misleading headline from PopSugar. Yeah, well, what they mean is not getting enough sleep is unhealthy. Duh. Exercise has nothing to do with the problem.

The idea is that people get up early to exercise and this cuts into their regular sleep schedule. Exercise is almost always good for you barring extreme overworking.

So there you go. Get your sleep and exercise. You heard it here first.

Oh, and SugarPop, you win my not so weekly Misleading Headline of the Week award.

Tom Liberman

Natalie Portman and the Snide Comment

Posted on by

natalie portmanDuring the recent Golden Globes award ceremony Natalie Portman and Ron Howard presented the award for Best Director of a feature film. Portman announced, “And here are the all-male nominees.” I think she was being unfair and incomplete.

If she had mentioned what she thought was a worthy film directed by a woman, there are certainly several choices this year, and which male directed film she would have left off I would say that at least her speech was complete if still unfair. The dig was unfair to all the nominated men because they had nothing to do with their selection. The statement certainly implies that some, if not all, of them didn’t deserve the nomination. The winner, Guillermo del Toro, might have responded during his acceptance speech but instead he took the high ground and gave an emotional speech about how much of his heart he poured into the move; The Shape of Water. He was the better person than Portman, in this case.

I certainly think there is a point to be made that some of the films this year directed by women were equally deserving of nomination, I just don’t think that Portman chose a good time for her nasty comment. It was nasty, true or not, you cannot deny her statement devaluing the award one of the directors was about to receive was anything else. You might well support Portman for making the statement and that’s fine, but it was rude, nasty, and unfair.

It was, to some small degree, exactly what she was complaining about. She essentially attacked a group of men for the single failing of being a man. It was sexism. Certainly, it was not an egregious attack. She didn’t threaten their livelihood or physically assault them. They will go on about their lives pretty much as before. I don’t think a crime has been committed. I don’t think Portman should be blacklisted from Hollywood for her actions. I don’t think she should be denied a chance to participate in the making of future movies. I just think it was nasty and rude. I think she owes the five directors an apology. I don’t expect she’ll be making one.

She is largely being lauded for her bold statement. Most of the articles I’ve read on the subject seem to think she did the right thing in calling out the fact that all five of the nominated films were directed by men. I disagree.

The statement she should have made, in my worthless opinion, is to refuse to give out the award. If she feels strongly there was a miscarriage of justice then she should simply have refused to participate in the ceremony. That I would have respected. But the reality is she wanted to be up on that stage giving the award, she wanted to have her cake and eat it too. And she is apparently getting that wish, at least from everyone except me.

Tom Liberman

Hell Hath No Fury Like Lindy Lou Layman Scorned

Posted on by

Lindy Lou LaymanThere’s a trendy story about a woman, Lindy Lou Layman, who damaged some expensive pieces of art after being intoxicated at the home of a prominent Houston Attorney, Tony Buzbee. It’s not completely her fault. She’s nuts, I get that, but bear with me for a moment. I’m going to have to do a lot of speculation but I think it’s important to consider our actions and Buzbee needs to think about that as well as Layman.

It is claimed Layman and Buzbee were on a first date and I’m already suspicious of the official story. Why didn’t Layman have her own car? Did they meet at the restaurant or wherever and then decide to drive back to his place in his car? I suspect they simply met while out on the town. Layman is an attractive young woman and Buzbee a wealthy man. Eye contact was made, drinks were purchased, things progressed, and she agreed to return home with him.

She got drunk and Buzbee decided he’d call her an Uber rather than continue the date. Again, suspicions raised. Why wouldn’t she leave when he called her a ride, then hide in the house, and finally begin to destroy property. It seems fairly apparent Buzbee made certain verbal contractual statements. You can stay until morning and we’ll go get brunch. I’m having a great time and would like to see you in the future. In exchange for these verbal commitments some sort of oral or other services were provided. After the completion of services Buzbee decided he’d had enough and wasn’t going to fulfill his verbal, and non-binding, contractual statements. He called an Uber and went up to bed. Thanks for the memories.

Somewhat or completely intoxicated and feeling both rejected and used, Layman began to take out her feelings on the artwork in the house. Hearing the commotion at some point Buzbee realized the girl he treated like crap was maybe a little pissed about it and wanted vengeance, go figure. Police summoned.

What’s the lesson here? I’m not sure. Buzbee might well not have gotten the services he desired if he’d been honest with Layman about his intentions to send her home immediately after completion. He almost certainly lied to Layman in order to get what he wanted. Buzbee shouldn’t be such a douche. She has legitimate grievances with him. Of course, there are few legal remedies to such breech of contract situations. What damages has Layman suffered? A little humiliation most certainly but anything financial? Hardly. In addition, Layman should blame herself for performing services so quickly and readily before understanding the nature of the relationship. Destroying expensive art is a good way to end up in prison and she chose to do so.

Actions have consequences. If you treat another person like garbage that other person might consider doing harm to you or your material possessions.

The question becomes if it was worth it. If I were to ask both Buzbee and Layman, I think they’d both say no. Something for us all to think about when dealing with other human monkeys.

You never know, maybe they’ll end up married. They just might deserve each other.

Tom Liberman

Aleppo vs Binomo

Posted on by

binomoSome comedians pranked United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley and it’s not all fun and games. The comedians asked Haley about a fictional country named Binomo. Haley indicated she knew about Binomo and was looking into Russian activity into their recent elections. There is no Binomo. What’s not funny about this is how Gary Johnson was treated when asked about the Syrian city of Aleppo. Let me compare the two incidents.

Johnson was the Libertarian candidate for the United States Presidency and was engaged in an interview when asked a question about Aleppo. The topic of conversation was not the Middle East and the insertion of Aleppo was largely without context. Haley was engaged in congratulating who she thought was the Prime Minister of Poland when asked if she was aware of the situation in Binomo. Like the Aleppo question, it came largely without context. In both cases the person hearing the word did not know exactly what was being discussed. That’s all fine and good. I mishear people all the time, particularly when a new topic comes up without warning.

It’s the reaction to the incident that tells us everything, not necessarily about Haley and Johnson although it speaks intrinsically to the values they hold as humans, but the response of regular people. Haley pretended she knew what was being talked about. She gave vague, politician friendly answers. We’re watching that very closely. I’ll report back to you when I find out more. She lied. Johnson simply asked for clarification, What’s Aleppo? The fact he used the word ‘what’ instead of ‘where’ clearly shows he was confused as to the reference. When it was made clear what was being discussed was a city in Syria, he went on to answer the question fully and cogently.

The fallout from the Johnson incident largely eliminated him from serious contention for the presidency although I suspect he had only small chances even without the event. Haley will suffer not at all. Those who support her will laugh it off as nothing and those who don’t will call for her to be fired. Nothing will happen and all will be as it was. That’s a shame.

If the people of the United States actually had the values they claim to have, Johnson would have been lauded for admitting, with a simple question, he didn’t know what he was being asked and needed clarification. Haley would be shown as a liar who is happy to pretend knowledge when she has none. This is testament to morality and ethics far more than proclaiming belief in one deity over another.

I’m quite certain if we presented these two cases as a hypothetical to a large audience there would be an almost unified conclusion. The person who doesn’t understand a question but pretends they do is clearly unethical. The person who readily admits they didn’t understand something and seeks clarification would be considered the better human. It’s unquestionable which answer was ethically and morally correct.

If Haley is too egotistical to even ask for clarification on the question presented by the comedians, what does it say about her character? What won’t she lie about? The answer is clear, lying is second nature to her. She does it without thought and great skill. This is who we apparently want leading us. We don’t want someone who honestly tries to find solutions but prefer a liar who glibly and with charm pretends to know things she or he does not.

Character is actually important but it means nothing when it comes to securing elections. I shouldn’t go that far, having a strong moral character does mean something, it means you’re going to have a very difficult time getting elected. And then we wonder what’s wrong with this country.

There is an enormous gap in perception in this country. The gap between admiring what we know to be ethical traits and our willingness to vote for those who don’t display them.

Aleppo vs Binomo is just but a single, stark example.

Tom Liberman

How Regulations Destroy Small and Medium Businesses

Posted on by

regulationsPeople generally assume regulations are a burden on all businesses in general but the reality is that large and enterprise companies are far less affected because of their greater resources. Thus, small and medium sized businesses are the only ones hurt. As if the small competitor didn’t have enough trouble already. It’s my opinion a great number of regulations are working exactly as planned, to benefit political allies.

You have to remember who pays the bills. Enterprise businesses bribe, I mean to say contribute, to politicians on a much larger scale than is possible for smaller businesses. When new regulations come down the pipeline they force all companies to perform a great deal of documentation to prove they are doing things correctly. Bigger companies can handle these costs much more readily and thus small producers are forced to sell their business. It’s an accelerating trend that has created carnage in the once influential small business world. I won’t get too deeply into statistics but since the 1980s small businesses have contributed less and less to the total economy of the United States.

An article I recently read about the 5,000 plus regulations that apply to apple farmers is case in point. There are regulations on scanning the entire orchard for mouse dropping before the start of the work day. Shoe to ladder to hand. While the Trump administration has reduced some regulations, they’ve also vastly increased regulations in regards to foreign workers so help does not appear to be on the horizon.

The reality of regulations is they drive out small players and aid enterprise business. Even if you support many of the regulations it is impossible to deny the evidence of their affect.

Another quite interesting factor in all of this is the standards applied by wholesalers often outstrip those applied by the government. If you want to have Whole Foods sell your produce, they require a lot of assurances about quality and safety. This means a double burden in which not only must government regulations be followed and thoroughly documented, but a second set of rules must be adhered to in order to make it to market. This, again, is to the advantage of larger operations.

I question the necessity of many government regulations at all. Let’s take the mouse droppings rule as an example. It’s certainly possible mouse droppings might make their way from the ground to a ladder to the hand of a worker and hence to an apple. The regulation requires workers walk the entire orchard each day before harvest looking for mouse droppings. This is obviously unreasonable, even for large operations. This regulation is doing nothing to prevent mouse droppings from migrating to your apple simply because it is an impossible rule to follow.

I’m not entirely against various regulations, I think there needs to be far fewer of them and they need be better written. The bottom line in the case of apples is to ensure those going to market aren’t going to make people sick. The simplest way to do this is test a random apple or two from various batches for salmonella or whatever else might cause disease. I admit this is not a perfect solution as the stray disease-causing apple will slip through the net, but that is no different than with current regulations. Citizens of the United States are sickened by food on a fairly regular basis.

Nor am I arguing against the executives of enterprise business, they have every right to conduct their companies as they choose. The problem is the majority of regulations, well-intentioned or not, basically work against smaller operations.

We want a business to succeed because they do something well, not because they are aided by the government against competition. Fewer, smarter, and better regulations is a winning recipe for the smart business owner and the consumer.

Tom Liberman