Author Archives: Tom Liberman

The Relationship Between Welfare and Disability

Posted on by

welfareWelfare is a word that conjures images of poor black and Hispanic people living in an urban environment. Like it or not, that’s the image. Disability, on the other hand, brings to mind pictures of people in wheelchairs struggling to get up a ramp. The reality is somewhat different but what I’d like to talk about today is the relationship of the two entitlement plans. The two programs basically take money from taxpayers and give it to those who cannot afford to get through life for whatever reason.

We have these programs because in the United States we do not like the idea of people living in hunger. We see pictures of children in poor nations standing in line to get water, children dying of disease in fly infested hospitals and we say; not here. Rightfully so. In a wealthy country, there should be protections for people who cannot care for themselves. I have a disabled niece who will never be able to care for herself, so I’m aware of the value of the so-called safety net.

There is a general dislike of entitlement programs in the United States. This contempt is probably centered with Republicans but there are plenty of Democrats and Libertarians who find the sheer amount of money being distributed to be troubling. We, as a whole, largely think people should live within their means. Most people believe there are people like my niece who need help, but think the majority of people receiving this help aren’t trying hard enough. There is likely a lot of truth to these thoughts.

That’s where the relationship between welfare and disability comes into play. Two things happened. The first was the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Reagan. It loosened the screening process by which the designation of disability was awarded.

Then came the Contract with America, Newt Gingrich, and President Bill Clinton. When the Republicans came to power in 1996 they wanted to reform welfare. Welfare, again, being imagined as poor black people living in the city. They did not, on other hand, seek disability reform. Mainly because it wasn’t much of a problem.

The result was The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. This was passed by the new Republican majority and signed by President Clinton. It is law today. It essentially forces people to work before they can collect welfare. After a couple of years, the amount being paid in welfare went down. Success! Our plan worked! Hooray!

The reality is less pleasant. The amount of people applying for and receiving disability skyrocketed. The majority of people getting this money live in rural areas, are white, and are generally Republican. We now have generational disability families. The entire family lives off their government checks. The percentage of United States citizens on disability has doubled since 1985, which of course means a larger increase in total recipients.

There is no work requirement or time limit on receiving disability checks. Once granted, they arrive monthly for the rest of the recipient’s life.

We hear all about how the Social Security fund is scheduled to run out of money in thirty years or so. The Disability Insurance fund is scheduled to run out of money this year! People on disability are being cut off in ever greater numbers as the money runs out. Desperation, largely in rural areas, is beginning to be felt.

Our Congress is pretty much unwilling to discuss this entitlement for various political reasons. I don’t want to get into the blame game, I want to highlight the issue and the fact people often misperceive what is happening to whom and why.

Just be aware when you criticize people on welfare you are essentially censuring people who have been determined, for whatever reason, to be disabled. These people used to be on welfare and have simply switched the government agency which provides them with money.

Ask yourself, why isn’t this being discussed? Could it be political?

Tom Liberman

Stoned BMW Workers Misleading Headline

Posted on by

bmw-workersStoned Assembly Line Workers Cost BMW $1 Million in One Day, Report Claims: Screams the misleading headline from TheDrive. The implication is BMW workers were high on marijuana and made some horrible mistake.

This one’s a doozy. If you read the headline and the first paragraph you’ll assume  the two BMW workers smoked a marijuana joint and then collapsed on the line causing a forty minute shutdown. This costs BMW about a million dollars.

It’s a good thing your trusty sniffer out of misleading headlines, that’s me, is on the case!

In the story we find out that one of the workers was way, way over the legal limit for alcohol and the other was flying on amphetamines. But, heck, let’s blame marijuana! Because it’s reported, but not confirmed, they smoked a joint before heading onto the line. Marijuana is an easy target. Mission accomplished Aaron Brown, you win for the most misleading headline. I sometimes let the author off the hook because the headline is generally written by someone else but Brown is an accomplice in the crime this time. The lead of his story is the marijuana use and, oh, by the way I’ll mention later, they were drunk as skunks and sailing on Crystal Meth.

This sort of thing is journalism at its worst. It’s designed specifically to be consumed by the anti-marijuana people of this world so they can pass it along in Facebook to everyone they know, that’s how I came across the story.

Always read the full story, my friends. Or come to me, because I do!

Tom Liberman

 

Maple Syrup and Why We have Government

Posted on by

maple syrupI just read an interesting article about maple syrup and it gave me insight into why we have government. I’m a Libertarian and sometimes butt heads with Anarchists who hang out in the same Social Media circles as me. When I first read the story about the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers I was all keyed up to write an anti-government rant, one said Anarchists would have enjoyed. Then I found out it’s not a government organization. It’s purely private. My rant dissipated but there is a story to be told nevertheless.

The FPAQ basically regulates how much maple syrup is produced in the Quebec province of Canada. They do this by limiting the number of trees that can be tapped. This was done back in the 1960’s in order to compete more effectively with United States maple producers. In addition to limiting the amount of maple syrup produced, they keep a strategic reserve in case of crop failure, and sell all the maple syrup as a collective to control prices.

The organization has fundamentally changed the nature of maple syrup production in the world. Before it came into existence, Quebec maple syrup producers were not able to compete with producers in the United States, primarily Vermont. They now control about 70% of the market and export $362 million worth of the sweet, sweet stuff.

My original blog was going to be about how the maple syrup farmers in Quebec are upset by the quotas and how big, bad government was interfering with free enterprise. Oh well, so much for that.

The question then becomes, why did the FPAQ form? Why didn’t each maple syrup producer simple make as much as they wanted and sell it at a price they determined? That’s what us Free Market Libertarian advocate. But here is a case of people quite voluntarily giving up part of their freedom to become, in essence, a government regulatory agency.

The answer is simple. It was in their best interest to do so. By banding together, they created a more powerful entity. By pooling and selling their syrup together, they weren’t constantly undercutting each others’ price. By creating a reserve, they were ensuring a steady stream of revenue in case of a disastrous harvest season. By limiting production, they were driving up prices, creating scarcity where before there was none. And all these worked quite well for them.

Now the United States has been increasing its maple syrup production, taking some of the market back, and the members of the FPAQ are beginning to chafe against the rules. They are selling on the black market and producing more than their quota. They are rebelling against their own organization.

And this is the very root of government. The reason the FPAQ formed is the same reason most governments form. It is much safer for a group of people to organize. Once organized they need structure to ensure everyone is playing by the rules. Thus, government comes into being. The bigger the organization, the more rules are needed. In order to compete and be safe in this world, bigger and bigger organizations are required.

Of course, the pseudo-government grew despotic, as is its nature. It created rules and regulations that were actually hurting its members rather than helping. The members began to rebel.

All this explains why I’m a Libertarian and not an Anarchist. If we destroy one government the result will not be no government, but most likely a despotic regime. Having no government at all is a lovely dream. It is something I think might be possible in the future, when we have endless energy and there is no more scarcity. That day is in the future, sadly.

Government is in our nature. I remain a Libertarian. I think government needs be unobtrusive. The more government intrudes on our lives, largely the worse it is for all of us. But I cannot pretend government exists for no reason. People want government and they create it. Then they rise up and destroy it. Then they create a new one.

Tom Liberman

Kathy Griffin, Margaret Court, and the Freedom to Hate

Posted on by

kathy griffin margaret courtThere is one thing Kathy Griffin and Margaret Court have in common, the Freedom to Hate. I think both women and their supporters will vehemently deny this fact. They will argue the two are merely stating a firmly held opinion and not backing down. Their opinions are not based on hate but passionate belief.

I’m here to tell you; Court and Griffin are filled with self-righteous hatred and it completely clouds their ability to think about their words and artistic expressions. As vile as I think both of these ladies are; it’s their right to be filled with as much hate as they want. They can express that hatred in whatever way they want as long as it is not physically hurting other people. If they want to post vile pictures and make completely unsupported claims about homosexuals, whatever. Go right ahead. That is the Freedom to Hate.

Almost everyone else has the right to say whatever they want about either of the women. You can despise one and revere the other. You can hate them both. You can like them both, although that has to be an awfully short list of people.

Advertisers have the right to stop purchasing commercials for things in which they are involved. People have the right to not buy items they are selling or attend events at which they are appearing. The only entity that doesn’t have the right to do as it pleases is the government. Griffin and Court, vile as they might be, cannot be arrested for their words. They cannot be fined for their words. That’s what Freedom of Speech, or in this case, Freedom of Hate is all about.

The world has many people like Court and Griffin. People completely overwhelmed, for whatever reason, by hatred of other people. The good news is the vast majority of us aren’t filled with such hate. The problem is we get drawn in by all that rage. The need to tell other people how awful and wrong is their behavior.

One of the lessons I’ve learned in life is when to disengage. You’ve all encountered someone so filled with rage they are unwilling to listen to reasonable arguments. People so locked into a position talking with them is an exercise in frustration. My advice, disengage. Forget about it. Their lives are filled with anger. They spend it trying to find more people to hate, more people to harangue in a vain attempt to feel better about themselves. The problem is, of course, the hate they so feel is internally generated. Someone filled with self love just can’t be bursting with that sort of rage. It’s not possible.

The bottom line is Griffin and Court are allowed to engage in lives filled with hate. They can create as much art as they want that embodies this hate. They can say as many hateful things about others as they want. Naturally, they must face the consequences of this hate. Freedom to hate doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of hate. It just means they can’t be imprisoned or fined.

That is an important distinction. There are nations in this world where people are not free to express themselves so. There are states where anyone who dares speak out is imprisoned, tortured, murdered, and even their families punished. What happens in these states is not the eradication of unwanted thoughts but the multiplying of them.

The people in nations in which government has the ability to act in this fashion become violent. Instead of expressing their hatred with words and art, they act out as terrorists. They kill people.

You most likely don’t like what Court or Griffin is saying, but their right to do so is important.

Feel free to hate, it’s a right.

Tom Liberman

What Covfefe Tells us About Our Nation

Posted on by

covfefePresident Trump was attempting to write a tweet about what he perceives as unfair press coverage. He was doing so around midnight and something happened that caused him to start to spell the word coverage as covfefe. I’m not here to talk about the tweet but the sadly predictable reaction therein.

Those who do not like Trump are pointing to it as a sign of his incompetence, stupidity, and possible derangement. They are making fun of the tweet. Those who like Trump are defending it as a simple typo that he didn’t get around to fixing. That he accidently sent the tweet rather than deleting it.

I’d wager that the vast majority of people reading this article believe one of those two things. What I find sad is the undeniably reversal of reactions had it been President Obama who made the same tweet. I can say with absolute certainty those responding would almost universally change their opinions.

Those who don’t like Obama would be pointing to the tweet as a sign of incompetence, stupidity, and possible derangement. They would be using it as an excuse for impeachment. These are the largely the same people who are defending the tweet from Trump as harmless.
Meanwhile, those who are attacking this tweet would be defending the same if it came from Obama. Harmless, they would say.

There is a reason for this. It is because human beings are willing to forgive behavior from people they support. They are not willing to forgive the conduct of those they don’t like. They are oblivious to the fact the behavior is exactly the same. They will largely deny this is the case. They suppose they are thinking critically and rationally.

I guess this behavior can be classified as simply being human nature. We are generous with those we like and stingy with people we dislike. While it might be nothing more than natural humanity, I find it disturbing. It is a complete lack of critical thinking. It is turning off the brain in order to convince yourself of something. I want to like Trump so the tweet is fine. I want to hate Trump so the tweet is bad.

I understand that prior behavior is part and parcel of the criticism of Trump. Still, the consternation about this tweet is baffling. He was clearly trying to write the word coverage. He failed to do so and then proceeded to send the tweet anyway. This perhaps deserves some ridicule. The President of the United States should be careful with her or his words, but that is just not Trump’s style. He will continue to use words loosely and it’s important to understand this fact.

In any case, my main point today is not to criticize Trump, but instead those who are both defending and attacking him. Take a moment of introspection. What would be your reaction if Obama made that tweet? If you’re willing to be honest with yourself, I think we all know the answer to that question.

This lies at the heart of what is dividing the United States these days. The words, or gibberish words, don’t matter. The policies don’t matter. It’s all a matter of who is saying them. If we continue to be divided the nation is in trouble. If we cannot accept good ideas even from those we dislike and we cannot criticize bad ideas from those we generally support; it becomes impossible to govern.

We elect our politicians; therefore, they are a reflection of the people of the nation. When we give up critical thinking, we can only expect our politicians to behave in the same fashion.

I guess I’m simply saying; listen to the message, not the messenger. Not that I have much hope people will do so.

Tom Liberman

The Tangled Web of Manuel Noriega and the United States

Posted on by

Manuel NoriegaI suspect most people reading this blog will remember Manuel Noriega, who recently died, as a bad guy. A brutal dictator who trafficked in drugs and whom the United States eventually removed from power in Panama. All these things are true but they were all products of our meddling in the affairs of other countries. We created Noriega and the blame for his horrible deeds rests upon our shoulders.

I’d recommend reading the entire Wikipedia article about Noriega to get a full view of his life and our responsibility in all of it. It’s a disturbing story to be sure, but what I want to talk about is the deep-rooted nature of why we interfered and how we continue to pursue the same policies today. How we set ourselves up for long-term failure, and cheerfully do so. Not only cheerfully but vigorously and with absolute confidence we are doing the right thing.

At its center is the idea other nations in this world do not have our best interests at heart. There are theocratic regimes, communist nations, autocratic dictators, and others whose desires are not aligned with our nation. We deal with these sorts of nations in various ways. We spy on them, we support opposition parties with money and military hardware, we sanction them economically, we bomb them, we invade them. Generally speaking, these strategies are applauded by the people of our country. These foreign nations want to hurt us, so we must actively attempt to do the same to them.

Our pursuit of these policies causes tremendous harm. To the people of the nations in question, to our own citizens, and to our ethical reputation. In the case of Noriega, he was considered a powerful United States asset. We paid him huge sums of money and helped him come to power in Panama. In return he funneled money to other insurgents in Central America who were fighting against regimes we did not like. That’s the tangled web we weave when we get involved with people like Noriega.

This involvement with Noriega led us to, at the least, ignore his drug trafficking. There is credible evidence we not only ignored it, but actually took part in the manufacturing and distribution of cocaine because part of the proceeds went to support opposition to regimes we were trying to overthrow.

This is not a one-time outcome. Again and again, the United States has meddled in the affairs of other nations and had it come back to hurt us. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953. We installed the Shah of Iran, a brutal dictator and much of the terrorism we see in the world is a result of this policy. In our zeal to overthrow the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we gave the Taliban military hardware. We advised them on tactics. When we wanted to rid ourselves of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad we supported paramilitary organizations that eventually became ISIS.

It can be argued that the entire Mexican drug trafficking organization that brings death and misery to so many is solely tied to a fellow named Miguel Angel Felix Gallerdo. He was heavily backed by the CIA because he helped us against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

What’s amazing about all of these facts is they are well known. The people making policy decisions today understand the failure of all this past meddling. They understand how it caused so much harm. And yet we continue and extend these exact same policies. We support regimes likes those in Saudi Arabia because they ostensibly help us against perceived enemies like Iran. We destroyed the government and nation of Iraq only to see the situation grow worse.

We arm organizations like the Kurds because they are helping us in Syria not recognizing the eventual outcome of all the destabilizing of the region.

We support despotic dictators the world over. We not only allow but partake in the illegal drug trade where it is perceived to be to our benefit. To put it succinctly, we meddle. We meddle, and we keep on meddling despite the fact that it has caused nothing but trouble.

Manuel Noriega is a tangible representation of all that I have written. He is the poster-child for why the United States needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations.

I know those arguing for so-called hardline solutions mean well. I know you hope for the best. I know you consider yourself patriots and want what is good for this nation.

I beseech you, read about Noriega and the horrible results of all our meddling.

Tom Liberman

Bill Snyder and Corey Sutton

Posted on by

Bill-SnyderI wrote this blog post and it was accepted by Sport Digest but then Bill Snyder and Kansas State reversed their course and allowed Sutton to leave the school. I still think the article has some merit so I’m posting it here on my own blog anyway. Keep in mind it was written before the announcement to release Sutton from his Athletic Scholarship. Let me know what you think.

** END EDIT**

A college football player named Corey Sutton wants to leave Kansas State University but Head Coach Bill Snyder is so far not allowing it to happen. Snyder does this by refusing to release Sutton from his athletic scholarship. While Sutton is under scholarship to Kansas State, no other school can offer him financial aid. Sutton cannot afford, or claims not to be able to afford, the price of an education at another university.

Complicating this situation greatly is that Sutton tweeted some pretty nasty things about Snyder, a man who is considered by all who know him to be an outstanding human being. I don’t know much about Sutton but judging by the tweets he seems like a pretty immature young man. Reading the comments on the story it seems Snyder has a great deal of support on this, likely because of his long history of gentlemanly behavior.

I, like many commenting, would tend to give Snyder some benefit of the doubt but I’m afraid I have to side with Sutton, character flaws and all. Particularly after Snyder gave his reasons for refusing to release Sutton. Snyder basically said Sutton is a backup and Snyder can’t let all his backups leave or he won’t have any number twos. He also did something pretty despicable, he tried to justify his decision by telling everyone that Sutton failed two drug tests.

Note, Snyder didn’t tell everyone about the failed tests while Sutton was still playing for and helping the team. He only released the information after Sutton said some pretty awful things about Snyder. I get that, I understand the frustration being called horrible things can do, you want to lash out at the person so doing. But, as the old saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. Snyder was way out of line to reveal the failed drug tests.

Snyder also made noise about not wanting to keep Sutton on the team based on the failed tests but being forced to do so by athletic department rules. If that was the case, I’d think he’d jump at the opportunity to get rid of Sutton.

In my opinion, Snyder is wrong, but within his rights, to refuse to release the scholarship. Sutton is not blameless in all of this. He should have announced his intention to depart earlier, leaving Snyder time to bestow the scholarship on a new player, a junior college transfer most likely.

Sutton seems like an immature jerk. I’m not sure why Snyder wants him on the team. Keeping him there can only be a distraction. Perhaps he merely wants to be cruel to Sutton, although this is not in keeping with Snyder’s well-known character.

Honestly, I’m really not sure what is going on. I can say with certainty that it’s a mess.

Tom Liberman

Home Economics and Gym Class

Posted on by

home economicsOver one in three people in the United States is considered obese. The price of that obesity is beyond measurement in dollars and human suffering. These are undeniable facts, but what solutions are available in a free nation where we cannot, and should not, control what people choose to eat and drink? One answer lies in education. Home Economics. Gym Class.

These are places we can teach young people to prepare healthy foods at a reasonable cost and learn to love exercise. These are things a free nation can do. The popularity of cooking shows is undeniable and the joy in preparing a meal for the people you love is palpable. Athletic achievement is a feeling of delight that I find difficult to express with the written word.

There are so many wonderful things about exercising and cooking that it’s astonishing we’ve managed to drift away from such pleasures. I understand people are busy today. I get that we have easy access to food prepared for us. I do not deny the reason we are so obese is related to the abundance of food and our sedentary society.

One thing I’m sure about is we can’t force people to stop eating and drinking fatty foods. We cannot regulate exercise. When I say can’t, what I really mean is we must not. In a totalitarian state, we can restrict the size of drink. This works. You might laugh when the state attempts to restrict a drink size, you scoff and say people will just purchase two drinks. They sometimes do but they sometimes don’t. Restricting the size of a drink works. Raising taxes on cigarettes works. All the studies indicate the state can effectively, but not completely, modify the behavior of the people. Yet, this is a path we must not follow.

Food is abundant. Cheap food with a high fat content is everywhere. People drive everywhere instead of walking. Most jobs require people stay seated for the entirety of their work day. Kids can find endless entertainment in front of their computer. They can socialize with all their friends without leaving the comfort of their favorite chair. All these things are true, all these things contribute to the problem of obesity. All of these things are not going to change.

Obesity effects all our lives. People are suffering health problems in increasing numbers and that has essentially put our entire healthcare industry on the brink of failure. People are unable to do their jobs which puts an unnecessary burden on the able-bodied. We can’t find enough people to serve in the military. We must sit next to obese people on planes, buses, in cars, on benches. We share our lives with them in many undeniable ways even if we are not obese ourselves. It is in my interest for this nation to overcome the problem, but in a way that does not destroy our freedom.

The answers are not easy. Good solutions are rarely simple. But, it seems a good idea to spend some time teaching kids the wonder of cooking, eating healthy foods, and exercising. There is so much value in these things. We prepare children for adult life in school and we used to consider cooking and exercising part of that education.

I know many children don’t want to take gym class. I watched with pity as friends of mine stood against the gym wall not only feeling the humiliation of being picked last but also dreading the moment when they were asked to perform in the field. I was certainly not interested in cooking when I was forced to take said course while in school.

I know our school districts are strapped for funds and I know there is no easy way to make all this happen. Still, it seems to me there is a clear course of action we can take. We can enforce recess starting at an early age. Go out, play. No phone. We can teach cooking starting in kindergarten and make it a mandatory course through high school.

Certainly, we cannot force people to eat less or exercise more. Perhaps by giving them a little shove when they are young, we can change our nation. It’s worth a try.

Tom Liberman

Gary Player is a Jerk and Rules Sticklers are No Fun

Posted on by

gary playerGary Player is one of the greatest golfers in history. He’s also pretty well known as a jerk. Golf is a sport known for being incredibly strict about rules interpretations. All of these things were on display when Player ranted against a record Bernhard Langer set, or didn’t set, this weekend.

Player is upset that Langer is being credited with winning the most Majors on the Senior PGA Tour. Langer won his ninth at the Senior PGA Championship which eclipsed the eight won by Jack Nicklaus. Except, The Senior Open, the British Senior Open to most people, was not always included as a Major. Player won The Senior Open when it was not considered a Major three times. This technically brings his total of Senior Majors to nine.

The reason The Senior Open wasn’t considered a Major on the Senior Tour like it is on the PGA Tour is because it wasn’t well established in those first few years. It has since become a Major Championship.

Thus, we arrive at the situation in which we find ourselves. Player is upset he is not recognized as the all-time leader in Senior Majors. For a man with a massive ego like Player, this is intolerable. He must speak out angrily and has done so.

I think there’s an interesting reality in all of this. Player is an egomaniacal jerk which he has displayed on any number of occasions. However, in this case he has a point. The Open has been considered one of the premier tournaments in all of golf for over a hundred years. The fact that the Senior Open wasn’t considered a Major Championship during the years Player won three times seems like a rather petty distinction.

But petty distinctions are what the rules of golf are based upon. Those who interpret such rules are notorious for enforcing them to the letter. In this case Player comes out on the wrong end of that understanding. The Senior Open was not a Major Championship when he won and therefore his total wins do not take those into account. A more generous interpretation of the Senior Open wins would give Player nine wins. The fact that the Senior Open was later designated a major indicates its importance.

The end result of this little contretemps proves at least two things. Player is, as advertised, a jerk. Those who enforce the rules of golf are, as history proves, ridiculous sticklers for the letter of the law even when it subverts its intent.

I suppose it’s nice you can count on some things.

Tom Liberman

Why is Terry Frei Very Uncomfortable?

Posted on by

terry freiA former sportswriter for the Denver Post, Terry Frei, wrote that he was “very uncomfortable” with Japanese driver Takuma Sato winning the Indianapolis 500. The Denver Post fired Frei after a second tweet in which he seemed to associate Sato winning the race with the death of his father’s friend in the Battle of Okinawa.

There is the predictable political divide with one side hailing Frei for speaking his mind and calling critics snowflakes while the other insists it is Frei who is the snowflake and clearly a supporter of President Trump. I’ll leave the political nonsense to the jungle gym crowd where they can scream and yell at one another and accomplish nothing. I’d like to examine why Frei is uncomfortable. Because in this feeling he is not alone.

What’s important to state is there is no doubt the win made Frei uncomfortable. He felt that way and no apology can change his feelings. He was so uncomfortable he felt compelled to tweet about it. But from where does that feeling of discomfort arrive? Frei did not know his father’s friend at all, he did not serve in World War II, he has suffered no injustice from anyone Japanese. Certainly, Sato himself has done nothing to Frei. There is no personal animosity between Frei and Sato. And yet the victory makes Frei uncomfortable.

Maybe I’m wrong but I think the heart of Frei’s uncomfortableness is the notion people from Japan represents something he does not like. His dislike becomes more palpable when the race in question comes on Memorial Day. A day to honor fallen soldiers.

Frei learned to dislike or even hate Japanese people reading about the death his father’s friend. He carries mementoes that once belonged to the man. He has, bear with my amateur psychological diagnosis, almost taken on the role of that man. He seems to believe, in some sense, that he is carrying on the legacy of his father’s dead friend. He has written about him. He has learned to hate Japanese from his story.

I’m not trying to criticize Frie, although I’m sure it looks as if I am. I’m trying to understand how someone who has never had anything done to him by someone from Japan can clearly feel so deeply about an issue. His feelings are terribly wrong and he admits as much in an apology. He became emotionally overwrought. I get all that.

This pathology is important. I hated people of Arabic descent in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack. When I read about a white nationalist stabbing two innocents to death on a train in Portland I want to kill him and all those who espouse his views. The same hate Frie clearly feels, although he rationalizes it by merely saying he is uncomfortable, is within us all.

This hate fuels much of the sentiment we read each and every day in diatribe filled comments. This hate is what fuels the enemies of the United States. They hate us for what we have done. We hate them for what they have done. Frie hates the Japanese even though they did nothing to him, it is second-hand hate but it is real. He understands and controls that hate. He’s not spouting off nonsense or advocating killing anyone. He controls his feelings and understands their origins.

I think it’s important to understand from where we generate this hate. Those who cannot, or choose not to, understand the hate fall victim to it. Their own lives are consumed and destroyed by these feelings. They project their feelings onto anyone who is perceived to be associated with the same group as the one so hated.

They convince themselves everyone around them feels the same way and they must take extreme action. This is how a terrorist is born.
Frei is nowhere near this terrible fate. He is merely a peripheral victim. He lost his job and that’s pretty serious. But he didn’t do anything physical. He is not in prison. He is still alive.

What Frei did is within each of us, much worse lies below the surface of our civility.
I think that is the lesson for us all. Understand from where the hate comes. Understand it, control it, and be a better person. Don’t let it control you. Nothing good can come from this hate and rage.

Try to be a decent human being. Frei failed but his failing is not as egregious as it might have been. I’m more than willing to give him another chance. I hope others feel the same way.

Tom Liberman

Does Spider-Man Need a Super Spider Suit?

Posted on by

spider-manOne of my favorite superheroes, Spider-man, is getting another movie released this summer and the trailers have a few fans up in arms. It seems young Peter Parker has a fancy spider suit with all sorts of gadgets, provided to him by Iron Man, Tony Stark. This is causing much dismay in the Spider-Man fan community and I think it’s an interesting situation.

Spider-Man appeals to me, and I suppose others, for obvious reasons. I’m a rather small and anti-social lad, much like Peter Parker. Unlike me, Parker gets his powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider. He is very unlike Iron Man. This hero is buoyed by millions of dollars, a genius intellect, and a fantastical costume which can perform wonders. Spider-Man has only the abilities provided to him by the spider bite. Super strength and agility, the ability to cling to walls, a spider-sense that warns him of danger, and fast healing abilities. Initially he used mechanical webcasters but the spider bite eventually allowed him to manufacturer and fire webs organically.

In the new movie, it is apparent he has an enhanced spider suit that can do all sorts of things including deploying a parachute. As a side note, falling from great heights was one of the things that proved quite dangerous to Parker over his years of crime fighting, so the parachute makes sense from a practical standpoint. Many of the features of the new spider suit seem to be designed to make up for the weaknesses inherent in the Spider-Man character.

All this is pretty much explanation as to why people are upset about the apparent powers of the new spider suit. It’s just not traditional for the character of Spider-Man. Spider-Man has weaknesses, he is not Batman, Iron Man or Superman. He is Peter Parker, a sweet young man who becomes a crime fighter because of an accident. The death of his first love, Gwen Stacy, resulted from the fact he wasn’t as super as other heroes. This costuming strikes people as a betrayal of the very nature of Spider-Man. A coarse commercialization in trying to create a connection between Iron Man and Spider-Man. It hurts. I agree with those complaining but with a caveat.

I’m not running a motion picture studio. I like Spider-Man because some little nerdy part of my brain thinks maybe I could be like him. I’m not trying to make a movie that appeals to the maximum number of people and generates revenue to keep my business up and running.
Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios are in a business and that business requires making money. A number of super hero movies failed horribly at a financial cost. They have a vested interest in making money, not having Spider-Man conform to what a few geeky fan-boys, that’s me, believe the webcaster should be.

Still, frowny face.

Tom Liberman

Hollywood Makes Movies You Want to See

Posted on by

hollywoodWhenever a movie doesn’t do well the comments below the story lambaste Hollywood for making movies that no one wants to see. ‘I’ll never go to a movie by that studio again’ is a refrain I often read. Or, ‘The Hollywood elites are out of touch with us regular folks’. Anyone who says something like this is clearly completely out of touch with reality for a number of reasons.

Yes, some movies don’t do very well and lose the studios money, but the reality of movie making is that it is largely a money-making machine. A single hit like Disney’s Beauty and the Beast creates huge profits that make up for any number of bombs. The major studios top a billion dollars in profit on a regular basis. That’s profit, not box office. People are not only going to movies in record numbers but they are also purchasing them from Netflix and other outlets for viewing at home.

People love entertainment and it is an enormously profitable industry. Listen, I get it. Hollywood makes what I consider to be awful movies filled with action and lack of character development. I’ve got nothing against a good superhero film but I don’t see many of them. In my opinion Hollywood creates far too many movies that don’t really tell a story, they just blast the screen with nonsensical action and stupid jokes.

I was reading review for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest on IMDB and was stunned to see it got an overall rating of 7.3 which is pretty darned good. Many of the reviewers were waxing poetically about how wonderful was the movie. I must have had an expression of slack-jawed astonishment on my face as I read glowing review after glowing review. Finally, I started to come across reviewers who shared my opinion of that atrociously long and hideously boring piece of film.

While I agree with those who lambaste Hollywood for making many bad movies, I certainly can’t accuse them of not understanding their audience. Hollywood fully understands exactly the kind of movies you want to see and caters to that desire.

They provide amazing entertainment for people around the world. Perhaps you don’t like the politics of a particular movie, or, more like me, you don’t like the reliance on action. But if you deny the fact Hollywood is quite good at doing their job, you’re living in a fantasy world. Which is fine, I just choose to accept reality.

In addition to making movies that are not so good, Hollywood also makes movies that are fantastic. They make movies of every genre that appeal to a wide range of people.

So, in the end, I have to celebrate the fact that movies I hate make hundreds of millions of dollars for the various studios because that means they can make some great ones also.

Tom Liberman

Best Whiskey or Whatever

Posted on by

best whiskeyThere is a plethora of phony contests in this world and I recently read a story where some rye whiskey I’ve never heard of was declared the Best Whiskey in the World! I was immediately skeptical.

I got even more doubtful when the article mentioned the distillery has been in operation for about seven years. They purchased the winning whiskey from a Canadian wholesaler and “finished” it later. I’m sure it’s a fine whiskey, but it’s not going to win a more rigorous contest.

This story does give us insight into modern marketing techniques.

Basically, what is happening is someone decides to start a contest. San Francisco World Spirits Competition in this case, but there are thousands of them. They send out invitations to spirit manufacturers all over, mainly boutique companies without a large audience. These invitations come with a price. A steep entry price and then tons of additional fees. Now, I’m not certain that’s the case with this particular event but I’d be willing to wager a bottle of Booker’s it is.

There are so many of these competitions out there it’s becoming quite difficult to separate the legitimate ones from the fly-by-night operations.

I’m a novelist. I’ve written a pretty good number of Sword and Sorcery fantasy novels. Not a week goes by that I don’t get some spam in my inbox inviting me to submit one of my novels to some phony competition for only a $200 entry free. If I were to do so I’d undoubtedly win some prize for which I’d have to pay. Then they’d offer to sell me a marketing kit and a medallion that I can use on my website. All for more money.

That’s the way these contests stay in business. They simply collect money from people who are desperate for publicity. Then the winners, and I use that term loosely, of the contest begin following the marketing kit’s advice and write stories they submit to various publications. Inevitably some of them get accepted and you and I end up reading stories about award winning whiskeys that are nothing of the sort.

Hey, more power to them, I suppose. If some company or individual enters a contest like this they are doing it of their own free will. If someone reads an article in which some unknown whiskey from a seven-year-old distillery is declared best in show they deserve what they get if they shell out $500 for a bottle.

It’s all good old fashioned capitalism. People have always been socially conscious. They’ll purchase something based on its reputation rather than its actual quality. There will be those who want to take advantage of this facet of human nature. They’ll package a wholesale whiskey in a fancy bottle with a bunch of fake awards splattered across their website and sell it at a premium price.

The people who drink it will pat themselves on the back for finding such a marvelous whiskey and eagerly pay for another bottle.

The lesson to be learned here, for those of you who care to listen, is that just because someone says something is the best, doesn’t mean it is.

Of course, if you enjoy it, go out and buy a bottle. You don’t have to listen to this old curmudgeon.

Tom Liberman

Computer is now Best Go Player in World

Posted on by

goThe march of Artificial Intelligence continues on as was demonstrated when a computer defeated champion Ke Jei in two matches of the game Go. Go has a staggeringly large amount of moves and it was long thought it would take decades for computers to become as dominant in Go as they have become in chess. It didn’t take that long and this is good news, despite what you may be reading about the dangers of AI.

The reason it is fantastic can be inferred by what has happened to chess since computers became unassailable at the game. There was fear about the rise of computers and the game of chess. It was generally assumed once computers could defeat people, chess would largely be solved. That all anyone would have to do is memorize the few correct plays and that would be that. The game would die.

The reality turned out to be exactly the opposite. Before computers there were a limited number playable chess lines at the highest levels. By lines I’m talking about opening sequences and general ideas. For less skilled players it was more than possible to use many different lines but at the top level the game had become somewhat stagnant. Chess great Bobby Fisher lamented this and predicted the end of the game.

Computers do not get discouraged because a particular line doesn’t seem to be working. They continue to calculate the possibilities. These chess computers discovered many of the lines considered inferior were actually quite playable. They came up with innovate new ideas that expanded the repertoire available to top players. The Super Grandmasters took note of these moves and began to expand upon them. Then computers in turn extended each of these new ideas.

Chess is experiencing a golden age thanks to computer intervention. There are many new lines and competition at the highest levels is filled with exciting games rather than boring draws played down familiar openings.

I would expect exactly the same thing to happen with Go. But that is only the beginning. As AI is tasked with solving all sorts of problems it will only expand the possibilities. It will think through lines that a human would discard out of hand. It will find innovative solutions to problems we thought impossible. This will take place in industry after industry. Computers with AI will expand our knowledge, increase the possibilities, and deeply enrich all our lives.

I know there are those out there with fears and I respect their opinion but politely disagree. Humanity is quickly approaching a new age. Artificial Intelligences will lead the way with breakthroughs in medicine, energy, transportation, crop management, and virtually every other endeavor.

Within fifty years our lives will be changed dramatically and, in my opinion, almost universally for the good of all. I only hope I live long enough to reap the benefits.

Tom Liberman

Hershey not Filling Candy Boxes

Posted on by

hersheyAn interesting lawsuit has been filed in my home state of Missouri in which a man claims Hershey is violating the law by underfilling their candy boxes. The reason the case fascinates me is because it brings into question both the manufacturer and the consumer.

The man filing the lawsuit believes the box size is a promise of a certain amount of candy. In a contract situation, this means Hershey has promised to deliver that quantity of candy for the price of the box. If the purchaser is deceived about this amount, then the transaction has not been successfully completed. The person making the purchase is entitled to either the correct amount of candy or a refund on a percentage of their outlay.

On the other hand, Hershey believes the weight of the box is sufficient to inform the customer of the nature of the quantity of candy within. If a customer picks up the box, judges its weight, and gives it a rattle, they are fully aware of how full the box is and Hershey has fulfilled their promise.

I think both sides have a legitimate point. Unlike certain boxed items, candy does not need extra space in order to survive jostling. Things like potato chips need the room in order not to shatter on shipping. Candy does not suffer from this issue and therefore there is only one good reason not to fill the boxes to the top. Hershey is hoping people will be deceived by the size of the box and discount the weight and the rattling factor.

The purpose of the larger boxes is simply to deceive, nothing more and nothing less.

But does this intent to deceive rise to the level of breaking a promise? Certainly, Hershey representatives are correct when they say the consumer is fully aware of the weight of the box and the lack of fullness. You cannot pick up such a container without noticing it is far short of being completely full. If the purchaser was deceived, then aren’t they to blame?

I strongly suspect Hershey will prevail in this lawsuit but I would like to think they could easily fill their boxes and forego the attempt to deceive. I understand they don’t fill the boxes because this strategy has an apparent impact on their bottom line. A box of Whoppers filled only slightly more than halfway means there is the appearance of saving a huge amount of money.

Hershey produces X number of boxes for sale. There is Y amount of product in those boxes. If you decrease Y, this lowers the cost of material to make the candy, the cost of shipping as weight is reduced, and perhaps increases boxes sold because people go through the candy faster and come back for another box.

There is however, another factor. Hershey’s has competition in this world. If people continually get less candy for their money, they can easily go to a competitor for their sweet desires. This underfill strategy might be costing the company a lot of money in the long run. Particularly if their competitors are not engaged in such.

That is the glory of capitalism. Consumers have a tremendous amount of power. Rather than filing lawsuits we can get what we want simply by changing our purchasing habits. Naturally a single person can’t do very much, but if enough people start to abandon Whoppers, you can bet Hershey will start to fill the boxes with more product.

This is even more true in the age of Social Media and the internet. Simply pointing out the discrepancy in the size of the box compared to the amount of candy therein can garner a huge amount of attention. If enough people agree with your assessment and Whoppers’s sales drop significantly in a short period of time, executives at Hershey will notice. They know exactly how many boxes are sold and any decline is something they will immediately attempt to rectify.

A Social Media strategy is likely more powerful than any lawsuit.

The Information Age has put increasing amounts of power in the hands of consumers. Speaking as a Libertarian I say … excellent.

Tom Liberman

Enemies and Allies: Iran and Saudi Arabia

Posted on by

iran and saudi arabiaI think there is an astounding gap between the perception and reality of the people in the United States as to our ostensible ally, Saudi Arabia, and our declared enemy Iran. This misperception between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been fostered by the politicians of the United States for so long and so consistently that it is all but unassailable.

I’m willing to assail. Iran is a far freer country built along the ideals of the Founding Fathers than Saudi Arabia has ever been. Iran is certainly not a free nation, it is ruled by a theocratic council but the reality is individuals in Iran enjoy a far higher degree of freedom than people in Saudi Arabia. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is deeply tied both politically and financially to the United States, therefore the official position is that Saudi Arabia is our ally.

The myth that Iran is our natural enemy is almost completely the fault of the United States and political machinations dating back to 1953 when the CIA engineered the overthrow of the freely elected government in Iran, largely at the behest of oil companies. Our puppet government was eventually overthrown by a popular revolution twenty-six years later in which United States citizens were captured at the embassy and held for well over a year.

After this incident, the supposedly enlightened Democratic President, Jimmy Carter instigated a series of sanctions against Iran that largely still exist. Iran then began to engage in many activities that were designed to harm the United States, including financially supporting and training terrorists. That’s bad, true. Reality is the despotic theocracy of Saudi Arabia spends far more money to educate, train, and deploy terrorists than Iran has ever done.

The Madrasa, or religious schools that spawned generations of Fundamental Islamic Terrorists, not only largely started in Saudi Arabia but still exist, right now. At this very moment, these schools are teaching young Saudis, and others around the world, how to hate the United States. They are pumping millions of dollars into terrorist organizations.

Meanwhile Iran is holding free elections, something that doesn’t happen in Saudi Arabia. In President Trump’s visit to that country the Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, was apparently pleased to note there wasn’t a single protestor to be found. Yep, Secretary Ross, they are in jail being tortured or hiding from a violently oppressive totalitarian state. That’s not a good thing. It’s a terrible thing. In Iran, our enemy, people are allowed to march and protest.

The nature of our political alliances with Iran and Saudi Arabia are fundamentally backward. When we refused to recognize the Iranian Revolution; we began a long descent into the situation we find ourselves in today. There is but a single reason we consider Saudi Arabia an ally and that is money. They hold an enormous amount of our National Debt. Yet more money flows directly to political leaders and business leaders.

Our military complex sells huge amounts of arms to Saudi Arabia but, to balance the books, the United States navy spends far more to keep the Gulf of Arabia clear for supertankers. Navy money comes from taxpayers so the trade seems perfectly fair to government officials and business leaders feasting away at the trough. They pay nothing and reap rewards so steep it is all but impossible to quantify.

To sum it up: We’ve sold the integrity of our nation, we’ve betrayed the ideas of the Founding Fathers, and we’ve created a hostile and unstable world simply because someone gave our leaders enough money.

The good news is that it is not too late. I’m no naïve fool, I understand we can’t immediately disentangle ourselves from the financial net we’ve woven with Saudi Arabia. I don’t think we can simply expect Iran to start acting as a better nation. I do think we can begin the process. We can start to hold both of these nations to better standards. When Iran acts freely and democratically we can support them even if we don’t agree on all issues. We can start to sanction Saudi Arabia for their theocratic state in the same way we currently punish Iran.

We have a long road ahead of us, but we’ll never get to where we want without taking that first step.

Tom Liberman

Investment Advice from the Comments Section

Posted on by

investment adviceI’m not exactly sure what it is that makes people think they are financial wizards but there is an inordinate amount of bad investment advice in the comments of every financially orientated story that make its way into the news. Generally, one person starts off with solid advice about Index Funds, finding good companies, buying a reasonable amount compared to your savings, trusting a good advisor, and what not. Then come the replies.

The stories themselves are usually, but not always, filled with good advice. Beware any story that is sponsored. Other than that, it’s usually solid investment strategies. Make sure you keep enough cash on hand to survive for six months if you lose your initial investment. Avoid the small caps and absolutely stay far away from microcaps. Talk to a financial professional and heed her or his advice. Keep your portfolio varied with a mix of different investments so as to avoid disaster if one sector is badly hit. Mix investments with growth and hold stock and be aware of your retirement date.

Anyway, all good advice. The problem with all this good advice is there is no get rich quick plan. Naturally, most of the advice from the comments section involves making a lot of money quickly.

There is a strong, mythical almost, and unfounded belief that precious metals are a good investment. They are not. A small foray into such is not a disaster but they pay no dividend and offer little growth potential, only sharp swings which is pretty much a guessing game.

Another tip I see frequently is to get out of the market now! This strategy is apparently employed by many people and it is disastrous. The idea is you sell all your stocks for cash when you suspect the market is going down and then rebuy after it starts to go back up again. The problem with this strategy is the same as with precious metals but even worse. You don’t know when the market is going up or down. No one does. It’s purely a guess. Maybe you’ll get lucky once or twice but on average you’ll lose because the market generally goes up. In addition, you pay fees to sell and then repay when you repurchase. If you just held the whole time it’s likely your investments would have grown and you won’t have paid any fees.

I also see lots of advice on how to make millions buying microcap stocks. These are often called penny stocks. The idea is you can buy a million shares of some company and if it goes up by fifty cents you make a lot of money. The problem with these companies is they are often highly manipulated by shady dealers. Basically, a single investor buys the stock very low, plants a bunch of false information, pumps some of their own money back into it as it rises, and then sells when it reaches a particular height. The issue here is the average investor is often locked out of early transactions, they occur before others are even given the opportunity to buy. Thus, the vast majority of investors buy high and sell low while the manipulator does the opposite.

Then there is the derision for those who give sound financial advice. Anyone, like me, daring enough to tell people to avoid precious metals, commodities in general, a high-turnover strategy, in and out, and microcaps is immediately assaulted as being stupid and wrong. Therefore, there becomes an impression that the majority of people are advocating a particular strategy and it must be the best one. It is not.

Like a lot of things in life, there is no simple answer. Anyone who insists that you can get rich, solve a complex problem, or improve your physique with this one easy step is almost certainly lying in order to get you to behave in a way that benefits the liar. Be aware.

That being said, it’s your money to spend how you want and everyone who invests foolishly puts money into the market. This money slowly and steadily enriches me and other wise investors.

Now you know.

Tom Liberman

Steveston Wharf and the Rush of Visitors

Posted on by

stevestonThere was a big Social Media story about a young girl who was pulled by a sea lion into Steveston Fisherman’s Wharf in Vancouver. In response, the region is now crowded with visitors, many with children in tow, likely hoping to see something similar. Are you shocked? Apparently much of the internet finds those visitors to be rather stupid. Commenters are filling up the stories with diatribes about how unwise are these people.

Really? You’re shocked people flock to the site of such an incident? You’re patting yourself on the back because you’re so much smarter than them? Ha! I absolutely guarantee most of the people making these comments would be lined up on the wharf with camera in hand if they lived in the region.

Heck, if I lived in the area I’d probably go myself. It’s an interesting story and I’d take a picture with my non-existent child leaning over the railing, and send it to all my friends. I hate crowds, introvert is me, so that would be a discouraging factor but if given the opportunity I can’t deny my natural curiosity. That’s what is going on, natural human behavior. I’d be shocked if there weren’t thousands of people with their children at the wharf.

And, as long as we’re talking about human nature, this need to congratulate ourselves because we know we wouldn’t be as stupid as all those other people certainly fits the same pattern. It seems to be an irresistible compulsion to spend a great deal of time and effort trying to convince ourselves we’re better than everyone else. We’re smart and they are stupid. I’d never do all those silly things. The internet gives us the means and opportunity to do so at an unprecedented level.

I like to consider myself a fairly intelligent fellow but I fall into the same patterns as everyone else. When I pass an accident on the road, I rail against all the idiots rubbernecking but then do exactly the same thing as I go by. I like to think I’m a bit smarter about it and keep my eye on the road more than most, but the temptation to see what caused the accident and the result therein overwhelms human sensibilities.

The fact we fall into predictable behaviors is something advertisers, lobbyists, and others use to manipulate us into doing what they want. It’s good to be aware of human nature so you can be cautious of those trying such maneuvers. If you pretend you are not subject to the same failings as everyone else, you are tempted to believe you wouldn’t be taking pictures at Steveston Wharf. You would, trust me.

Tom Liberman

Ye Old Town Center, Big Box Stores, Malls, and Online Shopping

Posted on by

town centerThere was a time in this country when the town center was where people gathered to socialize, shop, and spend their free time. Then along came a fellow named Sam Walton and destroyed the vast majority of them. First it happened in larger communities but eventually Walmart spread to small towns and mom and pop stores went bankrupt in enormous numbers.

A lot of people were upset by this turn of events. Sam Walton was known as the Most Hated Man in America in rural areas and small towns. The people who ran those local stores fought hard. They put up the good fight. They asked their neighbors and friends to shop at their store rather than Walmart even though the price of goods was higher and the selection was smaller. A picture of economic doom and gloom was forecast as more and more small businesses closed and enterprise business began to take a larger share of the market.

With the success of Walmart came all sorts of Big Box stores and Malls. The gathering place for people changed from town centers, which largely became deserted, to malls and large shopping stores. Anyone who had a small business again fought hard. They took out loans. They asked friends and family to remain loyal.

Then the internet arrived and with it online shopping led by Amazon. Social Media blossomed in this Information Age. Now it was the malls and big box stores’ turn to feel the pain. People didn’t need to leave their house to socialize or to purchase most goods. They did due diligence with online research, ordered the product they wanted at the price they liked, and had it in a remarkably short period of time.

The malls are fighting hard. They are now offering more of the sorts of services people can’t get online, things such as haircuts and dining options. The people in the community who are losing their jobs because of online shopping are pleading with their fellow citizens to buy at the mall instead of online, hoping to save jobs.

What does it all mean? All those closed mom and pop stores, all those shuttered malls, all those lost jobs? It means we get a better product, in a timelier fashion, at a lower price, and there are more jobs than ever!

The reason the mom and pop stores died is because they couldn’t compete economically with the big box stores. The reason the malls are dying is because they can’t compete with online shopping. The winner in all of this is you and me.

It hurts when that little shop around the corner closes and the people you know and like lose their jobs. Economics and capitalism is a harsh mistress. They don’t promise wine and roses for everyone. Nothing can make everyone happy all the time. But look around. What can’t you purchase? What thing that you want can’t you have? Yes, there are some things out of your price range, but far fewer than as little as twenty years ago.

The next generation is going to expect this sort of service in the same why we can’t live without a remote for the entertainment center. There is no going backward in this world. You can’t go home again.

You can lament the end of the malls and all the jobs the same way people were upset when all the family owned businesses went under to the tornado that was Sam Walton. Don’t worry, you probably won’t notice because you’ll be busy posting a picture of your new hat on Social Media.

Tom Liberman

Giada Di Laurentiis Provokes Internet Hate

Posted on by

Giada Di LaurentiisA celebrity chef by the name of Giada Di Laurentiis was recently quoted as saying she wishes she could tell strangers who approach her, please don’t get touchy-feely. According to the people who read this story, it means she is an elitist who thinks she is too good for regular folk. Really? Because she doesn’t like strangers coming up and grabbing, touching, and otherwise groping her?

Well, if Di Laurentiis is an elitist, I am also. I’m certainly not famous and there isn’t a line of people waiting to grab me and tell me how wonderful I am, but if there were, yuck. Di Laurentiis mentions that she wishes she could tell people not to get so forward but because of her celebrity status it is not possible.

I’m reminded of when I see a professional golfer transition from the green of one hole to the tee of the next while passing through a sea of people wanting to give her or him high-fives. Fans reaching out to pat the player. Again, yuck.

I also remember an incident at a Rams game I had a few years back where a drunk, slovenly, and rather disgusting person wanted to give me a high five. Yuck. Nope. I got called a rather vulgar name for refusing and I’m just a regular Tom. Imagine if I was a celebrity and I refused to touch the skin of the man who in all probability pissed all over his hand earlier in the day and didn’t do a good job of washing up. Am I an elitist because the thought of slapping hands with hundreds of people who have been doing who knows what all day skeeves me out?

The reality is that Di Laurentiis is correct in her assessment. If she refused to interact with her many fans she would anger some of them. I don’t get it. I don’t particularly want to touch a celebrity and I completely understand why Emily Blunt doesn’t want me to give her a hug. Darn it.

What surprises me is the rancor in the comments section. It’s a complete lack of self-awareness. I think the vast majority of people think exactly like Di Laurentiis feels. They would be completely freaked out if an endless line of strangers came up to them and insisted on hugging, patting, or otherwise touching them. They’d do it because they are celebrities but they wouldn’t like it.

The comments are also filled with people filled with self-congratulations because they claim not to like Di Laurentiis or find her unattractive. It seems to me if people who are not fans of hers and find her unattractive are commenting on a story about her, well, maybe they are fans. At least fans enough to know who she is and take the time to partially read a story about her.

To foray briefly into psychology, you might be tempted to post a hateful and angry comment on Social Media because you’re not particularly happy with your own life. You’re jealous of Di Laurentiis and by putting her down you give yourself the illusion you are better than her.
I’ll conclude with a question I ask in all honesty. Would you be freaked out if complete stranger rushed up to you and insisted on hugging

Tom Liberman