Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Trump and his View of the Civil War and Andrew Jackson

Posted on by

trump jackson civil warPresident Trump is of the opinion if Andrew Jackson was President of the United States around the time of the Civil War that he might have prevented it from occurring at all. It’s an interesting premise in a number of way.

Firstly, Jackson actually was president near the time of the Civil War. He left office only twenty-four years before hostilities broke out and the long simmering dispute was in full bloom during his term. While president, Jackson presided over what is called the Nullification Crisis. Jackson’s actions all but caused the Civil War to start earlier.

Legislators in South Carolina believed federal tariff laws were hurting the state’s economy. They passed legislation that essentially said laws created by Congress could be nullified by the states. Jackson sent in troops and eventually South Carolina, after some negotiating, backed down.

I suspect when Trump makes the suggestion that Jackson would have prevented the Civil War, he is referencing the Nullification Crisis and the resolution therein. It’s an interesting history lesson in what can happen in a short period of time. The twenty-four years that elapsed after the crisis and the beginning of the Civil War were dramatic.

The two presidents that preceded Lincoln were Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Both men knew the terrible danger of Civil War and did their best to appease the southern states and avoid the calamity. It is generally thought their inaction led to the conflict because it emboldened the southern states. They believed the northern states would never allow the country to go to war over the question of slavery.

Lincoln, on the other hand, was far more of a Jacksonian. He called the bluff of the southern states but, unlike at the time of Jackson, these states were now ready to push the issue. Thus, the Civil War began.

When Jackson made his stand, the circumstances were far different from the situation Lincoln found himself in. The lesson is important. We can learn from history but situations change. An action that led to one particular outcome yesterday can lead to an entirely different one tomorrow.

There is an apt idiom stating: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The idea is that someone who knows nothing about an issue generally does not attempt to fix a perceived problem. On the other hand, someone who has a small amount of knowledge might be willing to make a fix, but because their information is limited; that solution causes enormous problems.

Issues are enormously complex and fixes difficult. There is often no perfect solution to a particular problem. In the case of the Civil War, the two paths were both rather awful. One was the Civil War and the other was to continue to allow the abomination of slavery along with permitting the southern states inordinate power in comparison to their voting bloc.

The Civil War, it’s causes, and the events leading up to it are part of a complex tapestry that is not particular easy to piece together. What President Trump seems to be saying is that Jackson could have bluffed the south away from the issue of slavery. That by threatening them with war, they would have voluntarily abolished the peculiar institution. That is an example of making statements with little understanding of the issues involved.

That being said, his admiration of Jackson’s forthright style has merit. Someone should tell him that Lincoln was cut from the same cloth. That’s why the Civil War happened when it did, because Lincoln was behaving just like Jackson.

Tom Liberman

Brigitte Macron and Opinion and the Law

Posted on by

brigitte macronOne of the leading candidates to become the President of France is married to Brigitte Macron and their relationship brings up a number of interesting legal and societal questions. Emmanuel Macron met Brigitte when he was her fifteen-year-old student at La Providence High School in Amiens. She was thirty-nine at the time. They official announced they were dating when he turned seventeen.

The two eventually married when Emmanuel reached the age of thirty, shortly after she divorced her husband. He is the step-father to her three children, the oldest of whom is older than Emmanuel. All of this came to my attention thanks to a Facebook post expressing disgust at the relationship. Let the comments begin.

Some people are horrified by the age difference, while others don’t think it is anyone’s business. I’m certainly in the latter group. If people want to carry on affairs outside of marriage, I don’t much care. If a young man falls in love with an older woman, I don’t care. If an older woman has a relationship with a younger man, I don’t care. If a teacher and a fifteen-year-old student have an affair, I don’t really care. I know that last one is going to raise some ire.

The teacher is in a position of responsibility over a student and such an affair raises all sorts of questions about coercion. In the United States, if such a relationship occurred and was proven, Brigitte would have been tried and likely put in prison.

What’s important is that some people do care, and they have every right to their opinion. If they are outraged by this marriage, that’s their business to be disgusted. I don’t much care they are revolted. I think people are way too concerned about how other people carry on with their lives, but I’d be a hypocrite if I told them they shouldn’t be disgusted. That’s their choice.

If the laws in France allow for teachers and students to carry on sexual relationships then those are the laws of that country. I live in the United States and I have no more right to legislate in France than a French person has a right to pass laws in the United States.

If someone refuses to vote against Emmanuel because of this relationship, that is his or her right. If someone chooses to ignore the relationship and vote for him, that is also her or his decision to make.

The fact the two are now married leads me to believe their love was best for them, despite the age difference and the circumstances of their meeting. Certainly, you might disagree.

As a Libertarian I think it’s extraordinarily important people be allowed to their opinions and nations keep laws to a minimum. One of the first thing Totalitarian leaders do is attempt to force people to behave in certain ways. They do this primarily through legislation and personal attacks. The more power we vest in the state, the greater its ability to force us into a particular version of moral right.

Emmanuel and Brigitte have a relationship many might find disturbing. The fact they are legally allowed to do so is a good thing, and so is the right of some to withhold support for Emmanuel based on that relationship.

Tom Liberman

Oregon Engineers and the State Licensing Board

Posted on by

oregonThere’s a story in the news about a fellow in Oregon who was fined by the State Engineering board for claiming he’s an engineer when he’s not, at least not licensed in that state. The entire story involving the length of traffic lights is being debated in many places but I’d like to discuss a larger topic, state licensing boards. They’re a problem.

The first thing we must look at is why they exist in the first place. Why does someone have to actually be licensed to practice? The basic idea is that people can and do pretend to be things they are not in order to bilk people out of their money. There are many examples throughout history of this sort of behavior. Even today we see people practicing rudimentary forms of enhancement surgery that end up causing a great deal of harm.

If we have a listing of licensed practitioners, then people can review this list to ensure the person with whom they are dealing is actually capable of performing the job. Would you go to a doctor who wasn’t board certified? That’s the concept.

There is also the ability to remove the license from a dishonest or incompetent member. Lawyers are disbarred for unethical behavior fairly frequently.

I don’t doubt the good intentions behind these licensing boards. We don’t want to hire an unqualified engineer, doctor, or lawyer. Unfortunately, what many of these boards have become is simply revenue generating machines. Basically, pay the fee and get a license to be a massage therapist, a taxi-cab driver, a hairdresser, and on and on and on.

In this particular case, the board becomes a bullying agency and uses its power to punish anyone who even so much as attempts to levy a criticism against it. The state should never harbor those who attack opponents. It should be neutral, but unfortunately that’s not always the case.

These two trappings, money and power, have turned what for all appearances is a good idea into something insidious and terrible. I’m sure there are many excellent licensing boards out there. I’m certain many good people work for these boards and do their level best to make sure people performing professional services have the correct skillset to do so. I’m equally certain that quite a number of these boards exist almost exclusively to bully those with whom they disagree and as a source of revenue for the state or municipality.

I’m not one to pretend there are easy solutions to all these problems, but state required licensing is clearly not a perfect answer either. There are plenty of scam artists out there who paid the fee to get licensed but can’t perform the required services satisfactorily. There are plenty of qualified people out there performing services without licenses, simply because they can’t afford the process of getting one.

Basically, a licensed practitioner might be a scam artists while an unlicensed person might be perfectly capable.

What is the solution? Can we simply eliminate such boards and let the buyer beware? While that method depends on the intelligence and diligence of the consumer, it has its appeals in this information age in which we live. It is not difficult at all to go online and determine if that painting company has a track record of doing their job properly. Do we still need the government to license them? Particularly when we know the pitfalls of such licensing agencies.

Another option is to have a more liberal view of professional ability. In the case in question, the fellow being fined actually has a degree in engineering and practiced in his native country. He does not practice in Oregon and thus forego the time and expense of getting licensed. That the state did not recognize his skills in no way indicates he is not a capable engineer. His lack of licensing and obvious understanding of the subject matter prove this point.

What if we automatically conferred a license to every individual who graduates with the appropriate degree from a college or trade school? I recognize that we can get nitpicky about this. Perhaps the college is merely a diploma mill that doesn’t actually teach the students the required skills.

I think some combination of the above ideas is probably the closest we can get to a true solution. My hope is that technology will eventually give the consumer the information they need to operate without any sort of governmental intervention. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Tom Liberman

Rick Friday and the Cartoon that Got Him Fired

Posted on by

rick fridayA fellow named Rick Friday wrote a cartoon for Farm News in Iowa and was fired after one of his humorous pieces offended some people. Details are a bit fuzzy, but Friday indicated an editor of the Farm News told him a seed company dropped its advertisement, which in turn prompted Farm News to no longer publish Friday’s cartoons.

The cartoon in question points out that the CEOs of major agricultural businesses make far more money than the average Iowa farmer.

What should we make of this development? Is it a terrible thing? That’s certainly the general sentiment I’m reading. People are largely on the side of Friday and feel it is a terrible injustice that he lost his job. It’s the small farmer against the giant corporation. Most people will be rooting for the small farmer. I think the issue is far more complex than simply big guy versus little guy.

In this case, the farmers largely exist because of large agricultural businesses. Companies mentioned in Friday’s cartoon include Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, and John Deere although certainly others like Archer Daniels Midland exist. If it wasn’t for the research and development and technological know-how of these companies, most farms would simply not exist.

A farm that doesn’t take advantage of these technological marvels does not have nearly as much income as one that does. From modern machinery that costs millions of dollars to resistant seeds that prevent the loss of entire harvests; farmers are wholly and completely reliant on these businesses.

Likewise, farmers are the market for these companies. Without the farmers to buy the tractors and seed the fields, these companies go bankrupt. The two are wholly reliant upon each other.

What Friday wrote is completely true but it’s also a product of how much money the average farmer in Iowa makes as compared to the earnings of a multinational agricultural business. Companies like those mentioned generate billions of dollars in revenue. The leaders of businesses like that are compensated accordingly.

It is entirely proper for one of those businesses to withdraw advertising because they don’t like the content of a particular newspaper. Likewise, a farmer might decide to stop using the products from one of those companies in a similar fashion. Perhaps tens of thousands of farmers might stop doing so in response to the firing of Friday. That’s essentially the power of unionization. If they wanted to do it, if they found common ground, there is nothing to prevent them.

I sympathize with Friday. I think the company that withdrew their support in order to get Friday fired is being a bully and bringing unnecessary bad publicity upon itself. I think it shows not only a lack of good humor but also foregoes an opportunity for dialog. The farmers have a complaint. It wouldn’t hurt to address it.

Finally, I have words of advice for Friday: Be careful when you bite the hand that feeds you, it might stop providing food.

Tom Liberman

Why China Bans Baby Names

Posted on by

china-babyChina has come a long way toward embracing capitalism but, make no mistake about it, they still harbor many of the ideologies of a totalitarian state. This became evident when authorities restricted baby names in the Xinjiang region.

I think it’s important to understand the thinking that led to this ridiculous law. The region is largely populated by Muslims. Muslims are responsible for a great deal of the terrorism that occurs in the world. The leaders of China are rightly concerned the people of this region might commit horrific acts of violence and kill innocents. Certain baby names are associated with terrorism. Arafat, Muhammad, and Jihad among them.

Their solution is to forbid parents from giving their children such names. They think by removing the name, they are removing the idea from peoples’ heads. This is, naturally, utter nonsense. When we restrict the rights and freedoms of people, we only encourage them to become violent. By and large people are terrorists because they feel crushed by an oppressive government that gives them no other options.

The freer a people are to influence their government, they less likely they are to commit acts of terrorism. Why risk your life or hurt others when all you have to do is organize a vote and take over the government?

This peaceful transition of power is possibly the most important factor in creating a stable government. When President Obama takes over for President Bush, when President Trump takes over for Obama, sure, people wail and moan but it is done at the voting booth, not at the point of a gun. When Republicans lost power in 2008 they simply went about trying to win it back. Now that Democrats are out of power they are working hard to regain it; it’s almost certain at some point in the future they will.

In the United States, there are very few restrictions on baby names and these are associated with practicality. Babies can’t have numerical names, babies can’t have names over a certain number of characters, there are some restriction on various non-alpha characters. There are some obscenity bans but those probably wouldn’t hold up to a court review.

The reason I spend all this time illustrating the difference between the way the United States handles the authority of a parent to name their child as opposed to China is to illustrate the difference between a state of mind. In China, the leaders maintain an authoritarian position. They think because they want something to be, they can make laws and it will be so. This is, of course, delusional.

In the United States, we have a history of personal freedom and independence. Our politicians might want to prevent someone from naming their child Jesus Christ or Adolph Hitler. They might find those names sacrilegious or tastelessly disgusting; but they don’t pass laws preventing it because they realize we wouldn’t stand for it. We have a strong judiciary that will check any such impulses from politicians no matter how popular such initiatives might be.

Do not let these facts deter you from thinking people like those in China do not exist here in the United States. There are people out there plotting to pass laws trying to force you to lead the life they think acceptable. There are all sorts of ridiculous laws already out there. In some places in our great nation you can’t wear baggy pants without violating the law. There are laws about how you can engage in sexual gratification with another consenting adult in almost every state. Many places restrict when you can drink and most places ban putting particular chemicals into your body.

When China goes about banning a particular baby name they do it for a reason. They rationalize their law in many ways. They convince the population that doing so will make the people safer. They believe by controlling how other people think and act they make the world a better place. Such laws do exactly the opposite. They create criminals, they engender violence and terrorism, and they stomp upon freedom.

When you learn of a law being proposed that matches with your ethical or moral compass; think twice before throwing your support behind it. If you can force your way of life on someone else, they can do the same to you once they gain control.

Tom Liberman

Tad Cummins and the Runaway Girl

Posted on by

tad-cumminsYes, I’m saying runaway rather than Tad Cummins kidnap victim. I’ve waited to comment on this story because it seemed like there was more to it than we original knew, and now we find out the girl’s mother was a serial abuser. The girl was fleeing a terrible situation.

I’m not excusing Cummins for his behavior. He is the adult and he should never have allowed the situation with the girl to become so personal and certainly not intimate. He deserves what he has coming to him. That being said, the girl was fleeing a terrible situation with the one person who showed her any kindness. If this had occurred three years into the future, when she was eighteen, things would likely have turned out differently.

It doesn’t take much imagination to believe she might have been better off with Cummins. Again, I’ll state for a second time to head off the criticism I know is headed my way, Cummins was way out of line. He failed as a teacher, as an adult, and as someone who was trying to help the girl.

That being said, I think it’s clear they were love. The girl was one of ten children, all who apparently suffered horrific physical and likely mental abuse from their mother. The father left the situation about a year and a half ago and took custody of the children. It’s likely the abuse didn’t suddenly start in 2014 when it was first reported. It’s probable the girl and her siblings suffered from decades of abuse.

The girl was subject to serious physical abuse and looking for a way out. She found it in Cummins. It’s not completely impossible to rule out the idea that she was the instigator in all of this, although this certainly does not excuse his behavior. He had other options. He could have arranged for the girl to get away from the abuse and then waited the three years required for them to be together. He chose not to do that.

It all comes back to child abuse. If the girl’s mother hadn’t brutally beaten her children, if the girl’s father hadn’t sat back and watched it for years before finally leaving, if the state was allowed to take the children away; it’s likely none of this would have happened. It’s also quite probable the girl’s mother was abused herself as a child.

There aren’t easy answers to all of this. It’s not easy for the state to take children away from their parents and that’s a good thing. I think parents should have a fairly large amount of leeway in how they choose to raise their children.

The next question is what to do now? As it stands, what will happen is the girl will likely be returned to her father, which may or may not solve the abuse problem. Cummins will go to jail. Will the girl be better off with her father than with Cummins? Is Cummins a threat to general society? Is the father part of the abuse? I don’t know the answers and that’s unpleasant. There might not be a good solution.

The length of time this story captivated the public proves how much cases like this fascinate us.

I don’t have any great revelations or epiphanies about this situation. It would be nice if there weren’t people abusing children out there.

That’s about it.

How Counterculture Changes the World with Goth Ice Cream

Posted on by

countercultureTeens rebel against their parents, people rebel against the norms. For every cultural norm, we see people embracing counterculture. You’ll laugh when I talk about the latest counterculture movement. Goth ice cream.

Lately a lot of unicorns and rainbows have shown up in various places around the internet and in the physical world. We see Unicorn Frappuccino at Starbucks, rainbow sneakers from Nike, and many other combinations of the two just about everywhere you look.

There is nothing wrong with unicorns or rainbows. Anyone who takes delight in adorning themselves, gulping down, or otherwise enjoying colorful and single horned things is perfectly fine. What happens is that some people; contrarians, skeptics, whatever you want to call them, are willing to challenge things just for the sheer enjoyment of testing the normal. Some people get sick of seeing popular trends and lash out with things like Goth ice cream. Good for them!

I must admit a strong tendency to cut off my nose to spite my face. What this indicates is someone who behaves in self-destructive ways in an overreaction to something else.

It is in the very nature of rebellion to ultimately defeat the enemy. Eventually Goth ice cream might well become the normal and then people will rebel against it, perhaps even the same people who are currently promoting it as they fight against the rainbow and unicorn trend.

The important thing is what counterculture brings us. Without counterculture, we have stagnation. Without counterculture, we miss out on all sorts things. Music is constantly subject to this phenomenon with Nirvana being one of the most outstanding examples. That band came up with a new style of music and we all benefited. Well, many of us at least.

All of this is a good and natural thing. It is part of human nature to want to rebel against the standards of the time. While some people enjoy marching to the beat of a particular drum, there will always be others who refuse. The only way to completely stamp out such counterculture is with a totalitarian government. Counterculture is what authoritarians fear the most, they attempt to arrest, imprison, and execute anyone who dares speak out against their way of life.

When people are free to sell Goth ice cream on every corner it means we are free to do largely as we desire. People like to compare things to the Nazi regime in Germany and it’s not always valid. But to give you an example of a real totalitarian state; when you called the operator in Nazi Germany to give them a phone number, it was required you say D as in Dora, not D as in David. So, don’t underestimate Goth ice cream, my friends.

The ability to do as we please without interference from the government is important. Remember that right now people are trying to pass laws about what you can wear, what music you can listen to, what items you can purchase, what chemicals you can put in your body. Each time we pass laws limiting the ability of people to freely express themselves, to do as they please, we make the world a less wonderful place.

In conclusion, Goth ice cream is a beautiful thing.

Tom Liberman

What Asteroid Mining Means for Precious Metals

Posted on by

asteroid-miningWhat does asteroid mining and flooding the world’s supply of precious metals mean economically? What would that mean for the world and for you?

For many people the idea of mining asteroids is the stuff of science fiction. Most people roll their eyes at me when I talk about our ability to make this fantasy a reality.

I’m here to tell you, asteroid mining is not far away. There are a number of ideas on how to accomplish it, but one of the easiest is simply changing the velocity of small asteroids so they enter into Earth’s orbit. From there break them down aboard a space platform and drop the material to the surface.

Getting the mining platform built would be a task but once it was done there would be an endless series of asteroids floating gently in to be processed. Asteroids as small as ten meters across generally contain more than one-hundred pounds of gold and seven-hundred tons of other useful metals. Larger and more metal rich asteroids have far more. To put this in perspective; the total amount of gold mined from our planet is about 152,000 tons.

When asteroid mining becomes a reality, there are economic issues to consider. We often consider things precious, or valuable, simply because they are scarce; not because of their value in industry. Platinum is scarce and used in industry primarily for emission control on vehicles. It’s very possible that we will not need catalytic converters on modern cars. At that point, the value of platinum is reduced dramatically. Couple this with the fact an asteroid as small as one kilometer in size might be mined for more platinum than currently exists on Earth. Suddenly platinum is all but valueless.

Gold certainly has value in industry but also largely for artistic endeavors. The things we consider valuable today will be super-abundant tomorrow, and thus have little value. This has happened before. There was time when aluminum was more valuable than gold. Aluminum has incredible value in the industrial world. Luckily it is readily available on Earth so scarcity is not an issue, although I’m guessing it will be a target of asteroid mining as well.

Basically gold, platinum, silver, and other metals we associate with monetary policies will become super-abundant. This means every person who invested in such metals will lose their money. This also infers that any country basing their economic system on precious metals will instantly become bankrupt. Their savings will be worthless as the price of gold plummets.

The economics of the world are changing and it’s wise to be prepared for such events. Gold, platinum, silver, nickel, cobalt, rhodium, and other rare and useful metals aren’t going to be readily available immediately, but there is no doubt in my mind they will eventually become so.

Someday there will be mining bases embedded in the asteroid belt that will ship billions of tons of useful elements to Earth for processing. Scarcity is no longer an issue.

I’m not saying sell all your gold and platinum today. I am saying, if you’re a gold bug or hung up on precious metals, you need to consider what’s happening in the world and off it, and plan your future accordingly.

Tom Liberman

Race, Religion, Geography and Chris Soules

Posted on by

chris soulesNot long ago a fellow by the name of Chris Soules smashed his truck into the rear end of a tractor and killed the driver. He then fled the scene and was arrested later that evening after refusing to come in voluntarily. Soules is a minor celebrity having participated in the television show, The Bachelor. He was a man of strong Christian faith. He is a Caucasian. He lived in a rural community in Iowa.

While reading the comments from a relative of the victim, it struck me how willing people were to find an excuse for Soules. He didn’t flee the scene, was merely driving away to go get help. That sort of thing. It’s clear to me people would not have been fooling themselves with irrational explanations if Soules had been of a darker skin color, from a city rather than rural environment, and if he didn’t express belief in Jesus as his savior.

I’m not pulling the racism card, the religion card, or the geography card. I’m just stating what I think is obvious fact. If Soules was black, a city dweller, and a Muslim; most people would not be looking to exonerate him. They would be laying down the blame, insisting on putting him in jail, throwing away the key.

We have perceptions of people in our minds because of these external things that, while not valid, drive our reaction to their deeds.

Let’s imagine we are going to a movie that received rave review. We’re excited, we think it’s going to be great, and our expectations are high. The movie is merely good. We come away disappointed. On the other hand, if the movie got awful reviews and we expected it to be bad; we come away elated. That wasn’t bad at all. I enjoyed it. That’s the affect expectations have upon us and there is nothing wrong with that. That’s reality.

However, this is where critical thinking, pragmatism, and being a decent human being come into play. Yes, we have expectations but it’s important to overcome those expectations and treat each situation as the facts dictate. If the movie was fairly entertaining but not great, then that’s what it was. That’s how you should describe it to friends when they ask you about it.

It’s not looking great for Soules. He wasn’t seeking help when he drove away from the crime. The police had to seek him out and execute a warrant on him. One of the main reasons people flee a vehicular accident is to cleanse their system of alcohol or other capacity diminishing drugs. Some five hours passed after the accident before Soules was arrested.

The accident was almost certainly just that. However, if he was driving under the influence when it happened and fled to avoid testing, then he is guilty of a terrible crime, regardless of race, religion, and geography.

Check your expectations at the door.

Tom Liberman

Legislating Job Interview Questions Hoping for Gender Pay Equality

Posted on by

gender payThere are a number of cities and states considering legislation barring interviewers from asking you questions about your last or current salary. Some have already implemented it. This is being done in an effort to eliminate gender pay inequality. The basic idea is that women are paid less than men, and this particular question contributes to that problem.

I’m not going to get mired into a discussion about pay equality for women because it’s a complex topic. There are arguments that such inequalities do not exist, and other arguments indicating they do. What I’d like to discuss is if the proposed solution is going to solve the problem, and what sort of ancillary issues it will engender.

The idea is that a woman who is currently being paid less money than her male counterpart won’t have to reveal her salary, and thus an employer will offer her the standard amount given to a man. There are a number of problems with this plan.

A woman doesn’t have to accept a lower salary offer initially. She could easily say no.

If an employer doesn’t have any idea of previous salary, then she or he is probably going to lowball to start off. This could result in exactly the opposite of the desired outcome. The employee might well accept this initial offer.

Such laws are an attempt to protect people from themselves and, as a Libertarian, I’m almost always opposed to legislation of this nature. It is up to the employee to know their value and negotiate for a better salary. When we try to legislate things like this, we create a false sense of security. An employee is under the impression they are protected, when they are not. A potential employee in that situation might well be more vulnerable to being underpaid.

Let’s also take a moment to examine the unintended damage such legislation might cause. Mainly, the employer is less able to judge the potential employee. By understanding the prospect’s current salary, the employer can make various value judgments. The employer might make mistakes in their hiring process without this information. They might hire the wrong person and that can be extremely damaging to a business, particular a small business.

Finally, there is the idea this information is no longer as secret as it once was in this world. There was a time when no one really knew what anyone else was making. People kept that information secret. In this modern world with internet connectivity, people are much more aware of what their counterparts within a business and in similar positions with other companies are earning.

Nowadays, a business is much more likely to post basic salary information with every job opening. The potential employee is far better equipped with information than at any time in the history of the world. This means the part of the problem we are trying to fix, women getting offered a lower salary based on previous remuneration and not knowing it is a lowball offer, doesn’t really exist.

I know my opinion is going to cause certain people to shove me into particular categories and that’s up to them. What I want to be clear about is my feeling on wages. People should be paid based on their work. Sex, religion, disability, and all those other supposed factors don’t have much of a role in salary determination.

In summation, the fix doesn’t really solve the gender pay issue and could potentially cause other problems. Don’t do it.

Tom Liberman

Dancing with the Stars and Democracy

Posted on by

dancing with the starsThere was an enormous surprise in the television show Dancing with the Stars when the competitors who turned in arguably the best performance of the evening, were eliminated. The determination of which dancers remained is combination of judge’s rating and fan voting. The events of the other evening give us insight into the workings of a true democracy, and it ain’t always pretty.

Exactly why the viewing audience was not enamored with Heather Morris and Maksim Chmerkovskiy is open to speculation. The reality is that they were not. Despite performing exceptionally well according to the judges, they received the smallest percentage of the popular vote and were eliminated.

This is democracy in action. When the people vote for something you’re generally not going to see the most qualified candidate win.

Here in my hometown of St. Louis there used to be a yearly Best Of … article in a local publication. The Best Italian Restaurant. The Best Athlete. The results were eventually so out of touch with reality that the publication turned the decision over to a panel of experts. Wise move.

If you sit any random group of people down at a table and present them with a tasting of wines, they will choose something sweet and awful. I’m not saying their vote is invalid, it’s accurate. Most people like sweet wine because they don’t have a palate accustomed to the more complex flavors of a rich wine.

If a random group of people sat down and was asked about their favorite restaurant, we’d likely see a mid-level chain get the most votes.
That’s democracy and that’s why the Founding Father’s didn’t establish one. I could say a lot about it but I’ll go with one of my favorite quotes from a fellow named John Witherspoon: “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”

One result of the vote on Dancing with the Stars was, arguably, the best dancers were eliminated. A second outcome is the dancers people really want to see, continue on. Therein lies the beauty of democracy. Fans of the show get a chance to have their input determine winners.

In a democracy, we get what we want.

There are places in this world where a democracy is certainly a reasonable method to determine things, Dancing with the Stars is one of those places.

The results are plain for all to see. So, you tell me; where else do you think we should let a large group of people make decisions by voting?

Tom Liberman

Turkey and the Dangers of Foreign Entanglements

Posted on by

George Washington Foreign EntanglementsWe’ve been warned about foreign entanglements but no one is listening and we haven’t been for a long time.
Recep Erdogan is the President of Turkey and one of the key players in the Middle East. On April 16, 2017, the nation voted Erdogan broad executive powers as the leader of Turkey and replaced the existing Parliamentary System. Shortly thereafter he attacked Kurdish and Syrian forces who are in alliance with U.S. interests.

Turkey is an important ally to the United States in this region. We have a strategically important military base at Incirlik. There are about fifty nuclear weapons stored at that base.

This attack is a message to President Trump although the exact meaning is not easy to decipher. Perhaps it signals a shift in allegiance toward Russia. Certainly, the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, well understands the strategic importance of Turkey and has been working to improve relations between the two countries.

Turkey has a long and violent history with its Kurdish population. The Kurds strongly desire independence from Turkey, and other neighboring countries, where their population primarily resides. These Kurdish forces, the YPG, have been some of the most effective fighters against ISIS in the region and the United States has backed them to some degree.

That they desire their own nation is without question. This territory would come primarily from lands claimed by Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey. If these forces are successful in destroying ISIS they will certainly annex at least some of the territory so captured. This is something that Erdogan must consider in his own policies. The Kurds currently have a government in northern Iran largely independent of that country.

Turkey doesn’t like ISIS but they don’t like the YPG either, this despite the fact that the Kurds have been effectively leading the fight against the Islamic State. President Assad of Syria is an ally of the YPG as they help him with the Syrian rebels.

To say the issues are complex is to put it mildly.

What message is Erdogan sending when he bombs United States allies? It’s impossible to say but I do think of George Washington and his advice about foreign entanglements. Foreign nations have their own best interest in mind in regards to policy decisions. Whether said nation is an ally or an enemy, the leaders are not doing what is in the best interest of the United States. The leaders are making decisions that will best position their own nations.

Washington reminded us in his Farewell Address to avoid foreign entanglements for many of the reasons that are on stark display in the Syrian Civil War. We’ve seen this so many times before. We supported the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were fighting our enemies. We essentially overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and we’ve been embroiled in that mess ever since.

Will we never learn?

The situation in Syria is incredibly complex with any number of factions allying or fighting one another from one moment to the next. Any force we back today could well be our enemy tomorrow.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Tom Liberman

The Sad Message of Ann Coulter and Berkeley

Posted on by

ann-coulterThere’s been an ongoing situation with a woman named Ann Coulter who was invited to give a speech at the University of California at Berkeley. The lesson to be learned is that those who promulgate violence can sometimes win. It’s an important lesson to learn for those of us who preach tolerance and the peaceful exchange of ideas.

The reason Coulter eventually had to cancel her speech was because of the threat of violence. That threat largely comes from two ideologically motivated groups that don’t much care about Coulter or whose side she represents. They want violence and travel around the country looking to instigate it.

I’m a Libertarian and well acquainted with these two groups.

One is the Anarchists. Some of them call themselves Libertarian and I get to read their anti-government, anti-globalization nonsense on websites I frequent. They are angry, irrational, and extremely violent. You can spot them in a crowd wearing black with a stylized A symbol somewhere on their clothes.

The second is the White Nationalists. I’m familiar with them because they post racist, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic comments on Libertarian websites hoping to find those of a like mind. They are angry, irrational, and extremely violent. You can spot them in a crowd wearing a swastika on their clothes.

They are spoiling for the fight because it gets them publicity. They get to be on the news and they love battling each other. They find locations where their counterparts are protesting and immediately instigate a brawl. They have goggles and other equipment designed to defeat police suppression. They avoid carrying weapons and firearms knowing law enforcement officers will simply gun them down.

Between them they are far outnumbered by the rational and reasonable; however, they make up for it with violent fervor. There are plenty of people on the both sides who might not agree with Coulter, or a speaker from the other side, but are more than willing to promote civil discourse.

It’s important for those people to come together and sponsor talks from speakers like Coulter. Not just from one side but from both. The extreme right and left, frankly I don’t think there’s much difference between the two, benefit from the breakdown of civility. The losers are the moderates, those willing to listen and compromise.

The violent-prone extremes hope to bait us moderates into combat. They yell terrible things and posture angrily, hoping for a reply that will allow them to unleash their rage. And, of course, they love seeing their supposed opposites protesting nearby. The violence they desire is all but ensured.

The bad news is that Coulter eventually cancelled her speech because the moderates that invited her in the first place realized the lunatics on both sides were hoping to use the event to engage in violence.

Berkeley itself tried to accommodate the speech by moving it to a place better controlled by law enforcement officers. That was an excellent step forward by the University but it was not enough.

In order to stop the march of violence promoted by the extremes, people on opposite sides of the debate must come together. Those who oppose Coulter should try to make arrangements for her to speak safely at Berkeley. Those ideologically in line with Coulter should invite someone from the other side to speak as their guest.

Work together to promote civil discourse, engage in a dialectic with those opposed to us, band together against violence. These are the ways forward. These are the methods required to defeat the irrational and violent.

It is extraordinarily important to defeat those who promulgate rage and violence as a political means. Understand that rage and violence can win. Act accordingly.

Tom Liberman

Cheese Rolling and the Modern World

Posted on by

cheese rollingI just learned about a wonderful little festival called the Cooper’s Hill Cheese Rolling and Wake held in England in spring. The event involves rolling a nine-pound round of Double Gloucester cheese down a steep hill. A group of pursuers tumble after, hoping to be the first to reach the bottom and get the prize, the cheese.

The tradition has continued for many years but the modern world of litigation recently intruded in a fashion that I find quite interesting. Prior to 2010 the event was run in what is called a semi-organized way. Basically, the same group of people got things ready and monitored the event but didn’t really have an official role in doing so.

This became an impossibility as crowds to the rolling grew larger and the possibility of liability raised an ugly specter over the organizers. The event itself is dangerous, often times competitors are seriously injured as they fall while in pursuit of the cheese. The cheese itself attains high speed as it tumbles down the hill and spectators are at risk. With larger crowds came the need for spectator control. Boundaries had to be marked to make sure people weren’t trampled.

These dangers are not made up. They are quite real and the organizers faced no small financial risk for running the event without the proper safety measures. In 2010, there was an attempt to restrict entry by charging a fee and other rules were put in place to keep the crowd under control. These measures met a great deal of hostility from the people of the town, and eventually the organizers had to simply throw up their hands and disavow themselves.

Since then, the event has occurred spontaneously with no official organization. This means if something happens there is no specific entity to sue. Some people will find this a sad commentary on the state of the world. That we can’t even have a nice little cheese rolling competition without risking financial disaster through lawsuit.

Not that many years ago people could gather like this for an event and if some tragedy occurred, there would be general sadness but no call for financial remedies. Those days are gone for good or for ill. If a child is trampled, if a spectator falls and breaks a hip, if the course isn’t properly marked and someone is seriously injured, if any number of accidents occur; there will be lawsuits. That’s reality. We can’t deny it.

I don’t begrudge the former organizers their desire to abandon the event and I don’t blame the contestants for continuing it in an open fashion. I would imagine, as the event becomes ever more popular, some formal organization will have to come in and take control. That being said, there is something about a bunch of people coming together and having some fun that warms the heart of this Libertarian.

Just a bunch of folks having a good time chasing cheese. If a few legs are broken or an ankle sprained, that’s the way of it. Ambulances are standing by, but lawyers are not.

Tom Liberman

Jeff Sessions, Hawaii, Stupidity, and Humor

Posted on by

jeff sessionsI wasn’t planning on writing about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his comment about being amazed that a judge in Hawaii could put a hold on an Executive Order. Then he tried to pass the entire thing off as a joke, complaining that no one has a sense of humor any more.

So, anyway, now I’m going to comment. This strategy of covering up for a stupid statement by pretending you are joking is a clear indicator of lack of character. Sessions said something stupid in two ways. He referred to Hawaii as an island in the pacific as if that made if somehow less of a state, then he stated amazement over a point of law that he should well understand, he being the top law-enforcement officer in the United States.

If Sessions parents had taught him a little something called personal responsibility he would have handled his statement differently. He would have admitted that the word amazed was improperly used. Perhaps he doesn’t like the fact that we have a system of checks and balances in the United States but he certainly should not be amazed by it. He was also clearly making a derogatory statement about Hawaii and the judge in question. He should have apologized. That’s what a man of character would do.

It’s not up to me to speak for Sessions. He can speak for himself. However, I do get to judge a person by their words. Again, the original statement was rude and he probably misused the word amazed. I’m angered by his trying to pretend he didn’t make a mistake at all. That he didn’t insult the state of Hawaii.

I said something wrong, insulting, and stupid. To cover up this fact, I’ll pretend I was telling a joke. Shame on you for not having a sense of humor. Nope, not shame on me. Shame on you for a complete lack of personal responsibility.

This seems to be the standard way people excuse their mistakes these days. Well, it’s not really a mistake, I was just telling a joke, and it’s your fault for not getting the joke. I hear it all the time in conversations with friends, the highest levels of political discourse, from various media sources, sports figures, and on and on.

The attempt is to change the course of the conversation away from your misstatement. Rather than admit a mistake, it’s better to attack your opponent with whatever weapon you have available. Accusing someone of not having a sense of humor forces them onto the defensive. I do too have a sense of humor. I like to laugh. Suddenly we’re no longer talking about the original statement. We’re talking about my lack of humor.

It would be pleasant if people had the character to admit mistakes. It’s one of the most telling things you can learn about someone. When they make a mistake, do they admit it or do they attempt to cover it up by accusing you of lack of humor? You can’t change them. Sessions is the man he is, there is nothing I can do about it. The only person I can change is me. I now understand Sessions is the sort of fellow who won’t admit a mistake.

Good to know.

Tom Liberman

Faith Healers in Idaho and the Law

Posted on by

Faith HealersThere are a number of people in the United States who don’t believe in seeking medical attention because they think such efforts should be left to a divine being. These Faith Healers die quite frequently and so do their children. That’s where we run into a difficult situation involving the Constitution of the United States and the obligation of government to protect children.

If a legally capable adult foregoes medical treatment, there is nothing to be done about it. Faith Healers base their actions on religious beliefs. In the United States the government is not allowed to interfere in such cases. However, children are not legally capable of making their own decisions. If a parent is physically, mentally, or emotionally harming a child; they are generally breaking laws.

In many states, it is possible to intervene in a situation where a child’s life is being endangered by withholding medication, but not in Idaho, where I went to college. Many of the people in western states, including Idaho, strongly believe in individual liberty. I wrote a blog not long ago about how one of the most important lessons I learned while at the University of Idaho was avoiding interfering in another person’s business. It’s not right to tell them how to live. Thus, is not surprising Faith Healers have legal protection in the state.

Any metric based study of modern medicine indicates, without a doubt, medical intervention saves many lives. Many of the children and adults who die in the families of Faith Healers would still be alive today if they were treated.

Where does Idaho have an obligation to step in? Where should we mind our own business? Is it proper to stand by and watch a child die when they most likely could be saved with medical intervention? Is it proper to allow families to treat their children as they see fit?

Much as it pains me to say, I think the state should stay out of these situations. The children have no say into what family they are born into and their fate is avoidable and terrible. The onus for their death falls not on the state, not on me, but on their guardians who chose not to seek medical care. Horrible as it is.

One would hope that children who survive in such a family, who witness their siblings’ avoidable death, would choose to leave such a religion. That eventually no one would believe in Faith Healing and no children would die unnecessary deaths. Sadly, their death is the price of liberty, of freedom. It’s a terrible and painful price. An awful price for children who had no say in the matter. I do not deny this.

It’s not always easy to believe in individual liberty when the people practicing it are incredibly stupid. When this stupidity results in the death of their children.

Tom Liberman

Whoppers, Wikipedia, and Google oh My!

Posted on by

whoppersThere are a lot of people angry about a clever advertising campaign created by Burger King for Whoppers that uses our connected technology in an innovative way. I’m not as upset as everyone else, I think it’s pretty cool. Heavy-handed certainly, but it demonstrates possibilities.

What the executives at 3G Capital, owners of Burger King, authorized was a combined arms attack. The technologically savvy among us know that many people have devices that respond to voice commands. The executives authorized an advertising campaign that starts with the phrase, “Ok Google.” This command triggers anyone’s android device to assume it is the target of the communication. The advertisement then asks, “What is the Whopper Burger?”. This further prompts the device to search Wikipedia for Whopper Burger.

Staff writers at 3G Capital had prepared for the advertisement by editing the Wikipedia page to include an ingredient list for the Whopper.
Most of the world – Horror.

Me – Coolio!

The basic idea is strong. Advertisers are trying to reach their intended target. The person who owns the electronic device suddenly sees a picture of a mouth-watering Whopper on the screen. Some of them investigate the ingredient list, a few are hungry, and some small percentage head on over to Burger King to get some food.

There are problems here. The usurpation of someone else’s device and the editing of your own content on Wikipedia. If the advertisers had simply shown a little more deftness, all would have been fine.

The advertisement should have instructed the user to ask their device about the new and wonderful Whopper. 3G Capital should have released information about their product publicly and waited for the Wikipedia page to be updated organically. Basically, have a person monitoring the Wikipedia page until the desired change appears, then release the advertisement.

This strategy allows advertisers to reach their target audience and, this is the important thing, those who want to eat the new Whopper are made aware of its existence before they normally might have been. I can certainly think of a few improvements to this strategy right off the top of my head. Direct users to the website where a coupon resides, show the Wikipedia page on your device to servers at Burger King for the next hour and get a free Whopper with your purchase, I’m certain creative people can come up with more such ideas.

There is a lot of anti-advertisement sentiment in the world but there is nothing wrong with making people aware of a product they wish to purchase. No one buys anything under some sort of hypnotic spell engendered by the advertisement. We have laws against false advertising and that’s a good thing.

I love that targeted advertisement is aware of my search habits and offers me up choices that match said queries. I’ve been alerted to any number of price discounts through this sort of direct marketing. I see nothing wrong with a business informing their consumers of various products that might be of interest.

When I browse Facebook, I don’t see advertisements for women’s products. Why? I’m not a woman. I’m not interested in such things. It benefits us all when advertisements are targeted, both company and individual.

Sure, this foray was a bit brutish, but it’s a sign of things to come. I say that in a good way.

Tom Liberman

Mortgage Relief Scams and Why Lawyers are Good

Posted on by

lawyersThere is never a shortage of people trying to figure out ways to take your valuables and lawyers are your ally. The financial crisis from a few years ago created a large group of people who needed mortgage relief. These people fell far behind in the mortgage payments and became vulnerable targets.

While the mortgage crisis has largely abated, that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of people who remain in financial trouble. These people go to lawyers in an attempt to restructure their loans and obtain financial relief. The problem is that lawyers give good advice. This means there are no miracle fixes. Scammers, on the other hand, are not in the same way restricted. They offer fixes that are too good to be true.

Sadly, desperate people are vulnerable.

In full disclosure, I come from a family of lawyers. My father, uncle, brother, sister, cousins, and others make their money in the legal profession. I have always held lawyers in high esteem. I’ve seen my father and other family members help people out of terrible situations. There is, unfortunately, a large segment of society that does not feel the same way about lawyers as do I.

People love a good lawyer joke, and there is a general perception that lawyers are out to scam people from their money. I’m not denying there are unethical lawyers in this world, but one of the first things scammers will ask you to do is fire your current lawyer. People are often willing to do this because their legal bills are piling up and the resolution offered by the scammer has the appearance of easily solving the debtor’s issues.

Once you are without proper legal representation you are in trouble. The same goes for many situations in life. If you find a reputable lawyer you will have to pay for legal services, and that isn’t cheap. It might seem like a better idea to try and work your way out of issues without a lawyer but that way leads to danger.

The average person doesn’t have the ability to read a legal document and understand what they are signing. When you are presented with a complex document that promises to fix all of whatever financial troubles you are facing, it’s far better to pay a lawyer than to risk total disaster.

I’m well aware that a charge of potential thousands of dollars for someone already in financial distress is a painful price to pay. That it’s pretty easy to tell yourself you don’t need a lawyer. That’s one of the things scammers count on. They know their victim is vulnerable and can be convinced to forego sound legal advice. That’s when they have you.

There are many great lawyers out there who help people in financial distress. They’ll setup a payment plan that will be painful. They’ll help find a way for you to move forward although it won’t be pleasant. The old adage that if it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true is as accurate today as it was in the past. Perhaps even more so.

If you find yourself in a difficult financial situation my advice is simple. Find a good lawyer.

Tom Liberman

Bill O’Reilly and why Money Matters

Posted on by

bill-oreillyThe slow unraveling of the career of Bill O’Reilly has an important lesson for everyone. Money matters. At least that’s the angle I’d like to examine.

O’Reilly made a lot of money for a great many people including himself. O’Reilly’s top rated show generated enormous income for Fox News but also for the advertisers. They weren’t spending tens of millions on his show for no reason. Everyone who worked at Fox and far beyond benefited from the ripple effect of his money printing machine. Camera operators, commercial actors, executives, other personalities at Fox, the list is almost endless.

That’s why it took so long for Fox to finally fire O’Reilly. Imagine O’Reilly was a simple camera operator. How many incidents with women would it have taken for him to get fired? I think we all know the answer to that one. How many people would have risen up in support of O’Reilly under those circumstances? Again, we all know the answer to this question.

We can lament this situation all we want. We can complain about the extra chances someone in O’Reilly’s position gets, the opportunities many others would not, but reality must be considered. Someone who is generating huge amounts of money will almost universally get the benefit of any doubt and even be allowed to continue long past the point of uncertainty.

I think it can be argued that simply being in the position O’Reilly was in encourages the sort of behavior in which he engaged. If you are immediately punished for wayward behavior then you just don’t get an opportunity to repeat it, you’ve been fired.

There are lessons to be learned for those who have a pragmatic mind. Sure, the ideologically motivated will attempt to lay blame on one group or the other but that’s really beyond the point. The reality is people who generate a lot of revenue are going to get more chances than those who do not.

If someone in a position of power does something reprehensible to you, you might want to seek financial rewards rather than taking the high ground. No matter your principles, the person who wronged you is going to avoid consequences, at least for a while, until multiple allegations begin to pile up.

Certainly, you should report the situation to whatever authority you can but if nothing is being done about it, you must be a pragmatist. Get out of there as quickly as your legs can carry you, like Megyn Kelly. The old adage about life giving you lemons has validity in today’s world.
There are people like O’Reilly everywhere in this world and they often crush those who get in their way. They don’t hesitate to use their wealth and power to get away with many terrible things. That’s the lesson. Don’t let yourself be crushed. Understand that life is extraordinarily unfair. That many times you’ll be in the right but won’t be rewarded for it, you might even be punished.

The final lesson to consider is your own behavior. If you find yourself in a position of power, a place where you are allowed to get away with things, don’t do it. Take the high road, you’re the only one with the option to do so.

Tom Liberman

Can an ICBM be Intercepted?

Posted on by

ICBMI’m of the opinion the general belief of people is that the United States is currently capable of intercepting Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). That such attacks heading toward our country from an enemy like China, North Korea, or Russia can be stopped.

The U.S. military has certainly claimed, via the Missile Defense Agency, that such interceptions are completely possible. To date, tests against ballistic missiles have been fairly unsuccessful. In controlled environments, the interceptions have been successful only sporadically. These tests don’t include all the variables of a real attack.

The Israeli Arrow system has been proven effective against Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBM) and that’s a good thing. However, such missiles are moving at significantly lower speed than ICBMs.

The reality is somewhat disturbing. ICBMs are coming in at a speed of around seven kilometers per second. This velocity means any intercepting device has to calculate the course of the incoming attack, pass the information to a computer, analyze an interception path, and implement said path very quickly. Perhaps too quickly.

There are absolute laws in this world, the laws of physics. I’m not a mathematician and I also don’t want to underestimate human ingenuity. That being said, it seems likely to me that such an intercept might well be impossible. I’m not saying we should stop attempting to create a system that intercept such attacks, I’m just suggesting that we understand the difficulties involved and the fact that, currently, such attacks cannot be thwarted with any reliability.

I think it is important in our decision-making process to understand these facts. If our leaders, military commanders, and even the general population is under the impression we can stop such attacks, then we are likely to engage in activity that risk them.

Reality is sometimes unkind. It’s wonderful to imagine we can intercept ICBM attacks and prevent nuclear devastation. It’s even nicer to imagine that if we can’t do so today, with a lot of hard work and dedication, we will be able to do so in the future.

I think it’s entirely possible that it is physically impossible to prevent an ICBM attack on our country. That no matter how hard we work at it and how much money we spend on the problem, we will never be able to do so.

I certainly hope I’m wrong. It would be wonderful if a defensive umbrella could be created to prevent any country from using ICBMs on another country. Nuclear devastation is a bad thing. We shouldn’t want to use nuclear weapons on another country and obviously, we hope they are unable to do so to us.

An unpleasant reality is that we cannot currently prevent an ICBM attack on our country. This being the case, we need to base our political policies upon this fact. Anything else is foolish.

Tom Liberman